Raj Paul Oswal v. CWT

171 ITR 489High Court1988#10258 most cited

What is Raj Paul Oswal v. CWT authority for?

In interpreting Section 16A(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, the High Court held that the word 'may' should be read as 'shall', meaning the Wealth Tax Officer has no discretion to refuse a reference to the Valuation Officer when the conditions specified in the section are met.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Raj Paul Oswal v. CWT · Section 16A · Wealth Tax Act · reference to Valuation Officer · meaning of 'may' · shall · discretion · discretionary power

Issues it is cited on

section 16asection 92ca(3a)transfer pricing ordersection 153(1)section 292bbrelated party transactionsection 16section 92ca(3)section 127section 153bcomparable companiestransactional net margin method

Judgments citing Raj Paul Oswal v. CWT

Dsv Air & Sea Pvt. Ltd (Sucesssor to Panalpina World Transport (India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /Jt/ACIT/ ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 796/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…rcentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do'. In Raj Paul Oswal vs. CWT (1988) 171 ITR 489 (P&H), there arose a quarrel as to the meaning of the word `may' used in section 16A in the context of making reference to the Valuation Officer. Settling the controversy, the Hon'ble High Court held that the word `may' used in section 16A(1)(b), should be read as `shall'. It held that if the legislative intent had been to accord total discretion…

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAFCS3649P APPELLANT RESPONDENT & IT(TP)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee by CA Revenue by : Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PIL…

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAFCS3649P APPELLANT RESPONDENT & IT(TP)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee by CA Revenue by : Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PIL…

Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 699/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA
Section 144C

…ercentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do. In Raj Paul Oswal vs. CWT (1988) 171 ITR 489 (P&H), there arose a quarrel as to the meaning of the word `may used in section 16A in the context of making reference to the Valuation Officer. Settling the controversy, the Honble High Court held that the word `may' used in section 16A(1)(b), should be read as `shall'. It held that if the legislative intent had been to accord total discretion t…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 548/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA
Section 144C

…ercentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do. In Raj Paul Oswal vs. CWT (1988) 171 ITR 489 (P&H), there arose a quarrel as to the meaning of the word `may used in section 16A in the context of making reference to the Valuation Officer. Settling the controversy, the Honble High Court held that the word `may' used in section 16A(1)(b), should be read as `shall'. It held that if the legislative intent had been to accord total discretion t…

Ecl Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 899/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

…rcentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do'. In Raj Paul Oswal vs. CWT (1988) 171 ITR 489 (P&H), there arose a quarrel as to the meaning of the word ‘may' used in section 16A in the context of making reference to the Valuation Officer. Settling the controversy, the Hon'ble High Court held that the word ‘may' used in section 16A(1)(b), should be read as "shall'. It held that if the legislative intent had been to accord total discretion…

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Swiss Reshared Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 438/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Swiss Re Global Business Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (Previously Known As Swiss Re The Deputy Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 2Nd To 5Th Floor, Fairwinds Income Tax, Building, Embassy Golf Links Circle – 6(1)(2), Business Park, Challaghatta Vs. Bangalore. Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs8786L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 438/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Shri Nageswar Rao, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Revenue By Meena, Cit Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 -12-2021 Order Per Bench Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 92C

…ercentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do. In Raj Paul Oswal vs. CWT (1988) 171 ITR 489 (P&H), there arose a quarrel as to the meaning of the word `may used in section 16A in the context of making reference to the Valuation Officer. Settling the controversy, the Honble High Court held that Page 16 of 19 IT(TP)A No. 290 & 438/Bang/2015 the word `may' used in section 16A(1)(b), should be read as `shall'. It held that if the legislati…

Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2381/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144C

…rcentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do'. In Raj Paul Oswal vs. CWT (1988) 171 ITR 489 (P&H), there arose a quarrel as to the meaning of the word `may' used in section 16A in the context of making reference to the Valuation Officer. Settling the controversy, the Hon'ble High Court held that the word `may' used in section 16A(1)(b), should be read as `shall'. It held that if the legislative intent had been to accord total discretion…

M/S. Asian Honda Motor Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6142/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiasian Honda Motor Co. Ltd, Dcit, C/O. Pds Legal Atmaram Int. Taxation Vs. Mansion, Office No. 7, First Floor, Kg Marg, New Delhi Pan:Aaica2531P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri NC Swain, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 271BSection 92(3)Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―I-2‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asian Honda Motor Co. Ltd, DCIT, C/o. PDS Legal Atmaram Int. Taxation Vs. Mansion, Office No. 7, First Floor, KG Marg, New Delhi PAN:AAICA2531P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. Deepak Chopra, Adv Revenue by: Shri NC Swain, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28/07/2016 Date of pronouncement 25/10/2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 01. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 09.09.2015 of the ld DRP-2, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2…

M/S. Asian Honda Motor Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6143/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Asian Honda Motor Co. Dcit, Ltd., Intl Taxation, Vs. C/O. Pds Legal New Delhi Atmaram Mansion, Office No.7, First Floor, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Pan:Aaica2531P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 92(3)Section 92C

…rcentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do‟. In Raj Paul Oswal vs. CWT (1988) 171 ITR 489 (P&H), there arose a quarrel as to the meaning of the word `may‟ used in section 16A in the context of making reference to the Valuation Officer. Settling the controversy, the Hon‟ble High Court held that the word `may' used in section 16A(1)(b), should be read as `shall'. It held that if the legislative intent had been to accord total discretion…