R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT

82 ITR 570Supreme Court of India1971#780 most cited

What is R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT authority for?

Tax laws must be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice, even though equitable considerations are generally irrelevant in their interpretation.

131

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT · 82 ITR 570 · Supreme Court 1971 · interpretation of tax laws · equitable considerations · reasonable interpretation · consonance with justice · statutory construction · Section 10 · Section 11 · Section 143(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 10Section 10(23C)(iiiad)Section 11Section 115JAASection 115JBSection 12AASection 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expenditurecomparable uncontrolled price methodsection 92(1)cost plus methodfunctional analysissection 80jjasection 80jjaasection 92c(3)section 92fmanagement feesbenchmarking analysis

Judgments citing R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Income Tax Department vs. S D Material Handlers Private Limited, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…he Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [1994] 77 Taxman 66/[1993] 201 ITR 995 (Bom.), wherein the following view has been taken : "4. The word "owner", as observed by the Supreme Court in R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (at page 578) has different meanings in different contexts and in certain circumstances even a lessee may be considered as the owner of the property leased to him. It was also held to be so by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Alpana Talkies [1983] 139 ITR 1055. It was a case of a lease of a theatre for exhibiting films. Under the lease agreement, t…

M/S High Range Foods Private Ltd, Kochi vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(3), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 22/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…legion, viz. Keshav Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 230 (SC) Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 152 (SC) E.D.Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC) Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 835 (SC) R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC) CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC) The amount having been already received, income arises to that extent; the assessee acquiring a dominion or unqualified right over the same. That the assessee may not have appropriated it as it’s income in it’s accounts is another matter, it being trite that that the passing or, as the case…

Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Kalburgi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1126/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…s out of the dictionary; and should remember that statutes have some purpose and object to accomplish whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. In the case of R.B Jodha Mai Kuthiala v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC) , TC 40R.279, this Court said that one should apply the rule of reasonable interpretation. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, re…

M/S D. N. Singh Through Partner Dudheshwar Nath Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 260A

…this Court finds the following discussion: “17. This Court had occasion to discuss Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 and the meaning of the expression “owner” in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [(1971) 3 SCC 369 : AIR 1972 SC 126 : (1971) 82 ITR 570] . There it was held that for the purpose of Section 9 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the owner must be the person who can exercise the rights of the owner, not on behalf of the owner but in his own right. An assessee whose property remained vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property was not the owner of the property. This again as o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Harish Bhandari, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3049/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shashi Bhushan Shukla, CIT DR
Section 132Section 17(2)(vi)Section 28

…o real income had accrued to the assessee in respect of the enhanced charges for a variety of reasons. The apex Court took the view that "one has to look at things from a practical point of view." (R.B. Jodha Mai Kuthiala vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC)). The Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that the probability or improbability of realization has to be considered in a realistic manner. 11. In the case of State Bank of Travancore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC) wherein the majority view was that accrual of income must be real, taking into account the actuality of…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/82/2018HC Himachal Pradesh07 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

Section 145Section 36Section 43D

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ITA Nos.82 & 83 of 2018. Reserved on : 24th November, 2022. Date of Decision : 7th December, 2022. ITA No.82 of 2018. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax …...Appellant Versus The Kangra Central Co-op Bank Ltd. …...Respondent ITA No.83 of 2018. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax …...Appellant Versus The Kangra Central Co-op Bank Ltd. …...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For t…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/83/2018HC Himachal Pradesh07 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

Section 145Section 36Section 43D

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ITA Nos.82 & 83 of 2018. Reserved on : 24th November, 2022. Date of Decision : 7th December, 2022. ITA No.82 of 2018. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax …...Appellant Versus The Kangra Central Co-op Bank Ltd. …...Respondent ITA No.83 of 2018. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax …...Appellant Versus The Kangra Central Co-op Bank Ltd. …...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For t…

Mayur Uniquoters Limited, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, New Delhi

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 2/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: MonishaChoudhary, JCIT
Section 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 80J

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH-A, JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaMkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kklnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR. M. L. MEENA, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 02/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year: 2018-19 MayurUniquoters Ltd., cuke Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaitpura, Jaipur Sikar Road NFAC, New Delhi Jaitpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan India LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No: AAECM 1727F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 212/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year: 2019-20 MayurUniquoters Ltd.,…

George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-II (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2959/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2958 & 2959/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2016-17 George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., The ACIT, 2-b, Apex Plaza, 5, v. Corporate Circle -II(1), Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AACCG 6145R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate…

George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-II (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2958/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2958 & 2959/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2016-17 George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., The ACIT, 2-b, Apex Plaza, 5, v. Corporate Circle -II(1), Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AACCG 6145R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate…

Krishna Build Home Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur

ITA 143/JPR/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…ness assets of the assessee is assessable as Income from Business. The copy of assessment order for AY 2012-13 has been filed in Paper Book for AY 2011-12 (ITA No 143/JPR/2021) at page 80-84 of Paper Book. g) The ld AO has relied upon i) R.B. Jodhamal Vs CIT 82 ITR 570 (SC) and (ii) S.G.Mercantile Corp Pvt Ltd Vs CIT AIR 1972 SC 732. The facts of these cases are distinguishable. (i) In the case of R.B. Jodhamal the issue involved was to determine whether the assessee is owner of the property or not. In the case of the assessee there is no dispute over the ownership of the property but the issue involved in the c…

Krishna Build Home Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Holding Charge of ITO Ward 4(2)), Jaipur

ITA 142/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…ness assets of the assessee is assessable as Income from Business. The copy of assessment order for AY 2012-13 has been filed in Paper Book for AY 2011-12 (ITA No 143/JPR/2021) at page 80-84 of Paper Book. g) The ld AO has relied upon i) R.B. Jodhamal Vs CIT 82 ITR 570 (SC) and (ii) S.G.Mercantile Corp Pvt Ltd Vs CIT AIR 1972 SC 732. The facts of these cases are distinguishable. (i) In the case of R.B. Jodhamal the issue involved was to determine whether the assessee is owner of the property or not. In the case of the assessee there is no dispute over the ownership of the property but the issue involved in the c…

Brace Iron & Steel P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 8617/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhira, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

…t Para 22 held that the controversy revolves around the meaning to be given to the words 'of which the assessee is the owner' occurring in section 22 of the Act. b. At Para 23-24 the Hon’ble S.C. has discussed the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthialav. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC),to hold at Para 25 that: “25. In our opinion, the above observations of this Court clearly fixes the liability on a person who receives - or is entitled to receive the income from the property in his own right. In spite of this, the Assessing Officers of various circles instead of uniformally following the ratio laid down in this case have t…

West Bengal Trade Promotion Organisation Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward - 1(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 36/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Dutta, CA, Shri Saurabh Bagaria, Advocate & Shri RiteshFor Respondent: Shri I. Jamir, CIT, Sr. DR & Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 25

…nt to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act held as below:- “The supreme court in the case of Allied Motors P ltd and also in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd has already decided that the aforesaid provision has retrospective application. Again, in the case reported in 82 ITR 570, the Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well”. CIT vs Vatika Township P Ltd reported in (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) – Five Judges decision of the Supreme Court (page 487): “33…

Haresh Natvarlal Sanghvi, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 4, Thane

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2043/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodharesh Natvarlal Sanghavi Acit, Circle-4, 6Th Floor Nikunj House, Manav Mandir A-Wing, Room No. 2, Ashar I.T Park, Vs. Ambadi Road, Vasai (W), Road No. 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane. Thane(W) – 400 604 Pan –Afcps7828F Acit, Circle-4, 6Th Floor Haresh Natvarlal Sanghavi A-Wing, Room No. 2, Ashar I.T Park, Nikunj House, Manav Mandir Vs. Road No. 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Ambadi Road, Vasai (W), Thane(W) – 400 604 Thane. Pan –Afcps7828F Assessee By: S/Shri Nirav Vora & Ankita Lunia, A.Rs Revenue By: Shri R. Bhoopathi, D.R Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2020

For Appellant: S/shri Nirav Vora & Ankita Lunia, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24Section 32Section 57

…CIT(A) further held that similarly the honourable Gujarat High Court has also held in the case of Gaekwad & Co. 277 ITR 553 (Guj) as under: ―The Tribunal has, therefore, applied the law laid down by apex Court in case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC), which has been explained and applied in the aforesaid decision in case of Podar Cement (P) Ltd. (supra). The ratio of the decision is that, having regard to the object of the Act to tax the income, "owner" is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts recorded by t…

Brig. Narayan Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT-5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.30/CTK/2017 is partly allowed for

ITA 230/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.30/Ctk/2017 & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.230/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Brig. Narayan Nayak, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Prop: M/S Industrial Security & Bhubaneswar Allied Services, F3-F5, Id Market, Irc Village, Nayapalli, Bhubanesar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Abapn 3373 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Two Appeals, One Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Dated 27.10.2016 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act & Another Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.04.2019 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.30/Ctk/2017, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Sahoo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

…e cannot make a fortress out of the dictionary; and should remember that statutes have some purpose and object to accomplish whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. In the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 , this Court said that one should apply the rule of reasonable interpretation. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, requires to be trea…

Brig.Narayan Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.30/CTK/2017 is partly allowed for

ITA 30/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.30/Ctk/2017 & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.230/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Brig. Narayan Nayak, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Prop: M/S Industrial Security & Bhubaneswar Allied Services, F3-F5, Id Market, Irc Village, Nayapalli, Bhubanesar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Abapn 3373 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Two Appeals, One Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Dated 27.10.2016 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act & Another Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.04.2019 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.30/Ctk/2017, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Sahoo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

…e cannot make a fortress out of the dictionary; and should remember that statutes have some purpose and object to accomplish whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. In the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 , this Court said that one should apply the rule of reasonable interpretation. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, requires to be trea…

M/S. Voith Paper Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 5(2)Section 9

…udgment on the assessee’s conduct. We are only saying that the assessee should take responsibility for its actions. 27. It is not unusual for the courts to invoke equitable considerations even while interpreting tax laws. In Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT : (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC), Hegde, J., opined thus: “It is true that equitable considerations are irrelevant in interpreting tax laws. But, those laws, like all other laws, have to be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice”. In CIT v. J.H. Gotla : (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that though equity and taxation are often stranger…

Kishan Motors, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 169/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.169 & 371/CTK/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 Kishan Motors, Plot No.56/A, Vs. ITO, Ward 4(3), Bhubaneswar. Sahara Complex, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAGFK 7438 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri J.K.Lenka, DR Date of Hearing : 06/12/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28/01/2020 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM ITA No.169/CTK/2018 is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A),2, Bhubaneswar dat…

M/S Khandelwal Steel & Pipes, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Cuttack

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

ITA 138/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.138/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Khandelwal Steel & Pipes, Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), 614, Bomikhal, Cuttack Puri Rd Bhubaneswar Bhubanewswar-751010 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aagfk 7718 R (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Shadiram Sharma, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Shadiram Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 263Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 44

…e cannot make a fortress out of the dictionary; and should remember that statutes have some purpose and object to accomplish whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. In the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 , this Court said that one should apply the rule of reasonable interpretation. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, requires to be trea…