Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling v. Commissioner of Central Excise

3 SCC 643Supreme Court of India2016#6049 most cited

What is Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling v. Commissioner of Central Excise authority for?

The omission of a statutory provision is legally equivalent to its repeal, as the terms 'delete' and 'omit' are used interchangeably in legislative language.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling · omission · repeal · delete · legislative practice · Fibre Boards P. Ltd. · Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. · Kohlapur Cane Sugar · General Clauses Act

Sections most often in play

Section 115JAASection 115JBSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 8DSection 92BA(i)

Issues it is cited on

section 92ba(i)section 3asection 6(1)section 92baspecified domestic transactionreference to tpogoing concernslump salesection 92bsection 40a(2)section 40a(2)(b)section 92c

Judgments citing Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling v. Commissioner of Central Excise

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, CC-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1144/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 115QSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…Hon'ble Supreme Court: - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2005 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills, reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that 'omission' would amount to 'repeal'. - Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram Sharma Vs Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 740) held that it is a matter of legislative practice to provide while enacting an am…

Uttam Energy Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-12, Pune

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2033/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…(P) Ltd. vs CIT, (2015) 10 SCC 333 at p. 355] 3.7 It is to humbly submit that, the same two-Judge Bench of Fibre Boards case, once again after a month decided the said issue in detail in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling v. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2016) 3 SCC 643] and held that ‘delete’ and ‘omit’ are used interchangeably, so that when the expression ‘repeal’ refers to ‘delete’, it would necessarily take within its ken an ‘omission’ as well. The Court further observed that all these expressions only go to form and not to substance. It also reiterated its stand in Fibre Boards case and held that “This again…

Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /Jt/ACIT/NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1554/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

…se of argument a reference was made to the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Fiber Boards (P) Ltd., Bangalore v. Commissiioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, (2015) 10 SCC 333 and Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2016) 3 SCC 643 to convass the point that the earlier judgments of Constitutional Bench in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 1970 SCR 1 (69) and Kohlapur Cane Sugar [supra] have been not followed or have been overruled. First of all, nowhere the Hon‟ble Apex Court in both the judgments have overruled earlier two judgment of the Constitutional bench of the…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1146/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real distinction between an amendment and that “amendment” is in fact a wider term which includes deletion of the provision in an existing statu…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1145/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real distinction between an amendment and that “amendment” is in fact a wider term which includes deletion of the provision in an existing statu…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1113/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real distinction between an amendment and that “amendment” is in fact a wider term which includes deletion of the provision in an existing statu…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1112/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real distinction between an amendment and that “amendment” is in fact a wider term which includes deletion of the provision in an existing statu…

Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1111/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real distinction between an amendment and that “amendment” is in fact a wider term which includes deletion of the provision in an existing statu…

DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hind Aluminium Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1904/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…Boards (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2015) 10 SCC 333 wherein they have explained the judgment of Rayala Croporation (P) Ltd & Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. supra and Shri Bhagwati Steel Rolling vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2016) 3 SCC 643. The relevant submissions of the Ld. DR are incorporated as under:- As can be seen from the above, even at the time of insertion of section 928A, the legislature had intended to address the administrative and compliance burden of the assessee. Five years later, with the legislative intention of facilitating the assessee to do the business with ease…

Tranztar Commercial Vehicle Applications Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6624/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92C

…rse of argument a reference was made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fiber Boards (P) Ltd., Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, (2015) 10 SCC 333 and Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2016) 3 SCC 643 to convass the point that the earlier judgments of Constitutional Bench in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 1970 SCR 1 (69) and Kohlapur Cane Sugar [supra] have been not followed or have been overruled. First of all, nowhere the Hon’ble Apex Court in both the judgments have overruled earlier two judgment of the Constitutional bench of the…

Sri. Krishna Diamonds, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 232/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goutham, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 234BSection 92B

…ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real distinction between an amendment and that “amendment” is in fact a wider term which includes deletion of the provision in an existing statu…

DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection

ITA 7552/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Religare Enterprises Income-Tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan :Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…No. 7552 & CO. 27/Del./2018 by the Legislature [refer Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Shiv Shanker: (1971) 1 SCC 442 (SC); Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd: (2007) 6 SCC 236 (SC); Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. CCE: (2016) 3 SCC 643 (SC); Bangalore Club vs. CWT: (2020) 9 SCC 599 (SC); Mohd. Arshad vs. M/s. Naimuddin Nasimuddin and Anr: (1989) SCC OnLine Pat 283 (Pat.); Most. Najum Bibi vs. Jamila Khatoon: (1990) 187 ITR 548 (Pat.)]. 30. For the sake of emphasis, it is respectfully submitted that in the absence of any substantive amendment in section 14A(1) of the Act, more par…

York Tech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. and MsFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT-DR and Shri M. Baranwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

…ld necessarily take within its kin an omission as well. • Both delete and repeal lead to the same result, namely, that an "omission” being tantamount to a "deletion” is a form of repeal e. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling v. Commissioner of Central Excise. f20161 3 SCC 643 ""12. From this it is clear that when Section 6 of the General Clauses Act speaks of the repeal of any enactment, it refers not merely to the enactment as a whole but also to any provision contained in any Act. Thus, it is clear that if a part of a statute is deleted. Section 6 would nonetheless apply. Secondly, it is clear, as has been stated by r…

M/S Sobha City, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2936/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real distinction between an amendment and that “amendment” is in fact a wider term which includes deletion of the provision in an existing statu…

Deputy Inspector General vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (TDS)

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

M/S. Cauvery Aqua Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2021/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2021/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 40ASection 6Section 92BSection 92C

…IT(TP)A No.2021/Bang/2019 M/s. Cauvery Aqua Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2021/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Cauvery Aqua Private Limited No.5/3, 1st Main Road Deputy Commissioner of Jayamahal Extension Vs. Income-tax Bengaluru-560 046 Circle-2(1)(1) Bengaluru PAN NO :AAACC7357B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 21.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2021 O R D…

Firmenich Aromatics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 348/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing In Virtual Court No.2)

For Respondent: Shri Bomi Daruwala with
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 254(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual hearing in Virtual Court No.2) ITA. No.348/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Firemenich Aromatics (India) ACIT- Circle -4(2), Pvt Ltd, Room No. 642, 6th Floor, Arena Space, Building, 9th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. 4, Survey No 20, M.K. Road, Vs. New Shyam Nagar Road, Mumbai-400020. Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Next to Kapltaru Building, Behind Majas BEST Depot, Majaswadi, Jogeswari East, Mumbai 400060, PAN: AAACF1621M ITA. No.1732/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Koundinya Educational Society

ITTA/179/2019HC Andhra Pradesh29 Oct 2019

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

…289 143. (2003) 9 SCC 731 144. 2007 (14) Scale 36 145. (2014) 9 SCC 1 146. AIR 1994 SC 268 147. AIR 1951 SC 332 148. (2011) 10 SCC 608 149. (2016) 11 SCC 378 150. 1980 (Supp) SCC 601 151. 1998) 1 SCC 226 152. (1984) 3 SCC 16 153. (2006) 3 SCC 643 154. (2001) 3 SCC 609 155. 1963 SC 1241 156. AIR 1961 AP 50 157. AIR 1967 SC 944 158. AIR 2005 SC 862 159. (1992) 73 CLT 567 160. 1982) 3 SCC 519 161. (2016) 8 SCC 509 162. (2002) 8 SCC 228 163. (2018) 14 SCC 408 164. (2002) 2 SCC 459 165. (2015) 14 SCC 327 166. (2016) 11 SCC 31 CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd

ITA/224/2017HC Delhi10 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 10A(2)(c)

…9 SCC OnLine Del 9134. (iv) Gujarat Pottery Works Vs. B.P. Sood., AIR 1967 SC 964. (v) Kohlapur Canesugar Works Ltd. & Anr. Vs. UoI & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 536. (vi) Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr., (2016) 3 SCC 643. Digitally Signed By:CHARU CHAUDHARY Signing Date:29.02.2024 16:08:49 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 224/2017 Page 35 of 118 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF COURT 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the r…

Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling v. Commissioner of Central Excise (3 SCC 643) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax