DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed
ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18
For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274
…f the precise words used, merely, because we see, or fancy we see, an absurdity or manifest injustice from an adherence to their literal meaning". (See Abley v. Dale, ER p. 525) 23. The above position was highlighted in Sangeeta Singh v. Union of India [2005] 7 SCC 484. 24. It is of significance to note that the conceptual and contextual difference between section 271(1)(c) and section 276C of the Income-tax Act was lost sight of in Dilip N. Shroff’s case (supra). Dcit(E), Circle-1, Bengaluru Page 22 of 24 25. The Explanations appended to section 272(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act entirely indicates the element of s…