What is State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami authority for?

When interpreting a provision in a taxing statute, courts must adopt a construction that preserves its purpose, workability, and efficacy, eschewing interpretations that would defeat or obliterate the provision.

How many judgments cite State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami (36 STC 191), spanning 2013 to 2023.

State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami (36 STC 191)

The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Obulapuram Mining

ITA/100012/2017HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 92ASection 92C

…pted which renders particular provision otiose When interpreting a provision in a taxing statute, a construction, which would preserve the purpose of the provision, must be adopted. 11.1 As observed in State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami [(1975) 36 STC 191, 198 (SC)], in interpreting a provision, a construction which would defeat its purpose and, in effect, obliterate it from the statute book should be eschewed. If more than one construction is possible, that which preserves its workability and efficacy is to be preferred to the one which would render it otiose or sterile. In that view of the…

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

…h approval by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Madras v. Ajax Products Ltd. : 55 ITR 741: (AIR 1965 SC 1358). In another decision rendered by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. M. K. Kandaswami : 36 STC 191 : (AIR 1975 SC 1871) It has been observed thus: "In interpreting such a provision, a construction which would defeat its purpose and, in effect, obliterate it from the statute book should be eschewed. If more than one construction is possible, that which preserves its workability and efficacy is to be preferred to the one which would render it oti…

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…cluding clauses of rule 6DD, which have to be read along with, are not applicable in the instant case. The section, accordingly, shall squarely apply. In fact, it may be relevant here to reproduce from the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Kanadaswami [1975] 36 STC 191, referred to and relied upon by the Hon’ble Court in Grewal Group of Industries (supra): (at pg. 280) "Its main object is to plug leakage and prevent evasion of tax. In interpreting such a provision, a construction which would defeat its purpose and, in effect, obliterate it from the statute book should be eschewed. If more than one construction…

Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1633/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodiait (Tp) A No.182 (Bang) 2014 (Assessment Years : 2009 – 10)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain & Shri Madhur Jain AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 37(1)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(2)Section 92B(2)

…not be adopted which renders particular provision otiose. When interpreting a provision in a taxing statute, a construction, which would preserve the purpose of the provision, must be adopted. 11.1 As observed in State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami [(1975) 36 STC 191, 198 (SC)], in interpreting a provision, a construction which would defeat its purpose and, in effect, obliterate it from the statute book should be eschewed. If more than one construction is possible, that which preserves its workability and efficacy is to be preferred to the one which would render it otiose or sterile. In that view of the matter…

M/S Page Industries Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 163/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha,CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80JSection 92C

…ot be adopted which renders particular provision otiose. When interpreting a provision in a taxing statute, a construction, which would preserve the purpose of the provision, must be adopted. 11.1 As observed in State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami [(1975) 36 STC 191, 198 (SC)], in interpreting a provision, a construction which would defeat its purpose and, in effect, obliterate it from the statute book should be eschewed. If more than one construction is possible, that which preserves its workability and efficacy is to be preferred to the one which would render it otiose or sterile. In that view of the matter…

Sri. Vidyaranya Seva Sangha, Uganakeri vs. CIT, Hubli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee trust is dismissed

ITA 702/BANG/2014[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2016

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raosri Vidyaranya Seva Sangha, Rs No.25/1, Near Mishrikoti Cross, Kadanakoppa, Karwar Road, Uganakeri-581 198. Tq.Kalkhatgi … Appellant Pan: Aaajs 4355 C Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 12Section 12ASection 80G

…ation once granted u/s. 12A or 12AA with retrospective effect. When interpreting a provision in a taxing statute, a construction, which would preserve the purpose of the provision, must be adopted. As observed in State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami [(1975) 36 STC 191, 198 (SC)], in interpreting a provision, a construction which would defeat its purpose and, in effect, obliterate it from the statute book should be eschewed. If more than one construction is possible, that which preserves its workability and efficacy is to be preferred to the one which would render it otiose or sterile. In that view of the matter…