How many judgments cite Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT?

111 judgments on BharatTax cite Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT (266 ITR 1), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 143(2), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 148.

Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT

266 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2004#962 most cited

What is Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT authority for?

The court interprets the law as it is and cannot legislate by adding or subtracting from a statutory provision. Legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by the judicial interpretative process, as it is for the Legislature to amend the law.

111

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT · 266 ITR 1 · casus omissus · statutory interpretation · court cannot legislate · judicial interpretative process · legislative omission · Income Tax Act interpretation · Section 143(3) · Section 147 · Section 153A

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 153D Section 234B

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 243 casus omissus section 245ha section 245c settlement application section 245d(4)section 153(4)section 144ba section 245d section 244 section 144a

Judgments citing Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT

Smt. Ritu Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

…ed by several judicial pronouncements, the latest being the decision in the case of Dr. Dharmista Mehta vs. ITO (supra) rendered on 22.10.2022 by Mumbai Tribunal wherein after noticing the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Prakash Nath Khanna vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC); decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Kushagra Kataria (supra), it held that sub- section (2) of section 54 clearly provides a pigeonhole in the sense that the investment by way of purchase or construction, without resorting to the capital gains account scheme, can be made till the date of belated return under section 139…

Beetle Ventures Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Beetle Ventures Private Limited V. Acit – 16(2) Unit No. 155 Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.J. Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aafcb9355H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayesh Dadiya Department Represented By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…would be clear that the creditworthiness and status of the investors have no role in 7 M/s. Beetle Ventures Private Limited the application of the vestors have n provision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated in the case of Prakashnath Khanna Vs. CIT, (2004) 266 ITR 1 that interpretation should avoid the danger of a priori determination of the meaning with ones own pre conceived notion. It is also seen that the case laws relied upon by the appellant are all fact based where facts of each case are different. In the present case, the premium charged on a share of Rs.10/- is Rs.1240/- per share, i.e. the premium is…

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2958/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…same. Even if there is a casus omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation :— - Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. v. CIT [1999] 103 Taxman 623/237 ITR 589 (SC) - Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [2004] 135 Taxman 327/266 ITR 1 (SC) ITA Nos. 1889 and 1241/Mum/2018, 2384, 2958, 3475 and 3843/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 41 of 99 - Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) - Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC) Apart from the above, it was also pointed out that DTC Bill 2013 has proposed expressly that…

DCIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 3307/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…same. Even if there is a casus omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation :— - Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. v. CIT [1999] 103 Taxman 623/237 ITR 589 (SC) - Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [2004] 135 Taxman 327/266 ITR 1 (SC) - Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) - Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC) ITA Nos.2968/Mum/2015 & 1665/Mum/2019 ITA Nos. 3307/Mum/2015 & 2428/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2008-09 and 2009-10 Page 35 of 51 Apart from the above, it was also pointed out that DTC Bill 2013 has proposed expressly that a…

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6405/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 28

…same. Even if there is a casus omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation :— - Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. v. CIT [1999] 103 Taxman 623/237 ITR 589 (SC) - Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [2004] 135 Taxman 327/266 ITR 1 (SC) - Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) - Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC) Apart from the above, it was also pointed out that DTC Bill 2013 has proposed expressly that additional depreciation would be allowed in the FY in which the P&M is used for the first time and those provisions are not made w…

Ambuja Cements Ltd ( Formerly Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 2428/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…same. Even if there is a casus omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation :— - Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. v. CIT [1999] 103 Taxman 623/237 ITR 589 (SC) - Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [2004] 135 Taxman 327/266 ITR 1 (SC) - Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) - Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC) ITA Nos.2968/Mum/2015 & 1665/Mum/2019 ITA Nos. 3307/Mum/2015 & 2428/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2008-09 and 2009-10 Page 35 of 51 Apart from the above, it was also pointed out that DTC Bill 2013 has proposed expressly that a…

ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Steel Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2137/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Ira BahlFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…r of income tax Vs. Poddar Cement P Ltd : (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) [laying emphasis on paragraph 42], Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Gold Coin Health Foods P Ltd: (2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Prakash Nath Khanna Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax: (2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC). On the basis of the aforesaid, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the order passed by the CIT(A) be set aside and addition made 3 Assessment Year: 2015-16 by the Assessing Officer be restored as the provisions contained in Section 14A of the Act do not provide that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is to be restri…

M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 167/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.166 & 167/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10/6, Lavelle Road, of Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), PAN: AAACH 7551A Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Deepesh Wagle, CA Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Me…

M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 166/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80I

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Nahata, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-6(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 801ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

…]. It has been held in many decisions by the High Courts and the Supreme Court that meaning arising out of plain words should be understood in the interpretation of statute On this very issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna V.CIT 266 ITR 1 (SC) has held that the expression "In Due Time" means the time limit uls.139(1). 4.7 The provisions of Sec.154 can be invoked only when there is a mistake apparent form record. It has been held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of KKJ Foundation VS. ADIT (Exemption), Kochi 373 ITR 311 (2015) that it is clear that the Page 4 of 19 power…

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Surat vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1527/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2015-16 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Pri. Commissioner Of Urja Sadan, Nana Varachha Road, Vs Income-Tax-1, Kapodara Char Rasta, Surat, Ahmedabad Guajrat-395006 Pan : Aabcd 8912 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…wing judicial pronouncements:- i) Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Vs. CIT (SC) 237 ITR 589 ii) CST Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, (SC) 25 STC 188 iii) IPCA laboratory Ltd vs. DCIT (SC) 266 ITR 521 iv) Prakash Nath Khanna & Anr Vs. CIT & Anr, (SC) 266 ITR 1 5. The learned PCIT accordingly held that there was an error in the order of the Assessing Officer dated 17.11.2017 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act in allowing additional depreciation of Rs.58,57,95,373/- to the assessee; and, setting aside the said order by exercising the powers conferred upon him under Section 263 of the Act, he directed…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd., Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…ss/es under different heads of income, as also that, if any, assessed for the current year, as well as that to be, after set off, carry forward. It is well-settled that all the parts of a statute are to be construed together (Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 1 (SC)). To say that the income is not 'acted upon', as held in Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (supra) (para 25), would thus be valid only in case of an assessed positive income inasmuch as tax, though chargeable thereon, is yet not payable, so that there is tax mitigation — the basis of the said decision — to that extent. And not in a case of assessed l…

Shobha Sharma, Sirsa vs. ITO-Ward-3, Sirsa

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 54F

…depositing amount under capital gain scheme, as it had utilized entire capital gain before extended period u/s 139(4). iv) Here it is pertinent to mention the findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's decision in Prakash Nath Khanna and Another Vs C1T(204)266 ITR 1(SC), more particularly, die term " due date" the Apex Court found that the due date means the due date for filing the return u/s 139(l)'and not 139(4). v) The Apex Court has also observed that " The time within which the return is to be furnished is indicated only in sub section (1) of section 139 and not in ITA No. 646/Coch/2013 ITA No. 663/Coch/…

Rohtash Singh, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54B

…income as provided under section 139(4) of the Act. 5.6 On the other hand, the Learned DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Prakash Nath Khanna Vs CIT (2004) 266 ITR 1, the due date of the filing of the return of income should be under section 139(1) of the Act and not under section 139(4) of the Act. 5.7 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of Vijay Choudhary (supra) has discussed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Cou…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Futurz Next Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2396/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…airly at the language used. ‟ Once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law. he must be taxed, however, great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. " Similarly in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC), their Lordships have observed as under: “ It is a well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. .1 statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. The first and primary rule of constructi…

The ACIT, (OSD)Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Torrent Power Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 1668/AHD/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChowkshiFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…language used". In this regard reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a bench of Five Judges in the case of Padmasundara Rao Vs State of Tamil Nadu[2002] 255 ITR 147 and also in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna Vs CIT[2004] 266 ITR 1 (SC). "Once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however great the hardship may, appear to the judicial mind to be." Further as far as the legislative intent was concerned the IT AT, Mnmbai 's ruling rejecting appellants plea in the case of Smt. Smita N Shah Vs. JCIT [2005] 94 JTD 492(Mum…

L.K. Tea Company Private Limited, Dibrugarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Dibrugarh

ITA 307/GTY/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI BENCH “E” COURT AT KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L.Saini, Accountant Member ITA No.306-307/Gau/2018 Assessment Years :2015-16 & 2016-17 L.K. Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Income Tax Officer Khaliamari Road, Ward-2(1),Pushkara Dibrugarh-786001 House, NH 37, Natun [PAN No. AAACL 9045 P] Gaon, P.O. Mohanghat, Dibrugarh- 786008 . .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri M.C. Ome Ningshen, JCIT-SR-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue 09-12-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 13-12-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement…

L.K. Tea Company Private Limited, Dibrugarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Dibrugarh

ITA 306/GTY/2018[L.K. Tea Company Private Limited]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2019

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 474/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos.472 & 474 & C.O Nos.64 & 66/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd. 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc0457C (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ruchira Lakhotia, ACA

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

…de hors the same. Even if there is a casus omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation : - Orissa State Warehousino Corporation -vs,- CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC) - Prakash Nath Khanna and Another -vs.- CIT (2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC) - Smt. Tarulata Shyam & Othrs -vs.- CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) - Padmasundara Rao vs. Slate of Tamil Nadu: 255 ITR 147 (SC) Apart from the above, it was also pointed out that DTC Bill 2013 has proposed expressly that additional depreciation would be allowed in the FY in which the P&M is used for the first time and those provisions are not mad…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 472/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ruchira Lakhotia, ACA

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)