State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Limited

10 SCC 201Supreme Court of India2004#281 most cited

What is State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Limited authority for?

A taxing statute must be interpreted strictly based on what is clearly expressed, without implying anything not stated or importing provisions to supply deficiencies. A person must clearly fall within the ambit of the charging section for tax to be levied.

278

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

State of West Bengal v Kesoram Industries · taxing statute interpretation · equitable considerations · presumption in tax law · charging section · plain interpretation

Also reported as

266 ITR 721

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 191Section 194A(3)(iii)(a)

Issues it is cited on

section 43(b)section 3(b)section 34(1)(iv)section 36(va)actual payment basissection 43b(b)section 34(1)section 36(1)(iv)section 40a(2)section 41section 34section 2(24)(x)

Judgments citing State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Limited

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

…at in so far as provisions which impose a tax liability on the subject, if the words used are ambiguous and reasonable open to two interpretations benefit of interpretation is given to the subject. In State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Limited, (2004)10 SCC 201 has summed up the following principles applicable to the interpretation of a taxing statute: “(i) In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. A taxing statute cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot…

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

…at in so far as provisions which impose a tax liability on the subject, if the words used are ambiguous and reasonable open to two interpretations benefit of interpretation is given to the subject. In State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Limited, (2004)10 SCC 201 has summed up the following principles applicable to the interpretation of a taxing statute: “(i) In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. A taxing statute cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot…

J and P Coats Limited, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1367/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year IT(IT)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, No.11/Bang/2014 C/o. Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Bengaluru. 2008-09 Anchorage-II, 100/2, Richmond Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN : AAACJ 3713 G IT(TP)A -do- DCIT (International Taxation), No.382/Bang/2015 Circle – 1(1), 2010-11 Bengaluru. IT(TP)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., -do- No.2135/Bang/2016 1, George Square, 2012-13 Glasgow, Scotland G2 1AL, United K…

J and P Coats Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1366/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year IT(IT)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, No.11/Bang/2014 C/o. Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Bengaluru. 2008-09 Anchorage-II, 100/2, Richmond Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN : AAACJ 3713 G IT(TP)A -do- DCIT (International Taxation), No.382/Bang/2015 Circle – 1(1), 2010-11 Bengaluru. IT(TP)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., -do- No.2135/Bang/2016 1, George Square, 2012-13 Glasgow, Scotland G2 1AL, United K…

J and P Coats Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1365/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year IT(IT)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, No.11/Bang/2014 C/o. Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Bengaluru. 2008-09 Anchorage-II, 100/2, Richmond Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN : AAACJ 3713 G IT(TP)A -do- DCIT (International Taxation), No.382/Bang/2015 Circle – 1(1), 2010-11 Bengaluru. IT(TP)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., -do- No.2135/Bang/2016 1, George Square, 2012-13 Glasgow, Scotland G2 1AL, United K…

J & P Coats Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2135/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year IT(IT)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, No.11/Bang/2014 C/o. Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Bengaluru. 2008-09 Anchorage-II, 100/2, Richmond Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN : AAACJ 3713 G IT(TP)A -do- DCIT (International Taxation), No.382/Bang/2015 Circle – 1(1), 2010-11 Bengaluru. IT(TP)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., -do- No.2135/Bang/2016 1, George Square, 2012-13 Glasgow, Scotland G2 1AL, United K…

J & P Coats Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 382/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year IT(IT)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, No.11/Bang/2014 C/o. Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Bengaluru. 2008-09 Anchorage-II, 100/2, Richmond Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN : AAACJ 3713 G IT(TP)A -do- DCIT (International Taxation), No.382/Bang/2015 Circle – 1(1), 2010-11 Bengaluru. IT(TP)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., -do- No.2135/Bang/2016 1, George Square, 2012-13 Glasgow, Scotland G2 1AL, United K…

J & P Coats Limited, U.K vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1493/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year IT(IT)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, No.11/Bang/2014 C/o. Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Bengaluru. 2008-09 Anchorage-II, 100/2, Richmond Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN : AAACJ 3713 G IT(TP)A -do- DCIT (International Taxation), No.382/Bang/2015 Circle – 1(1), 2010-11 Bengaluru. IT(TP)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., -do- No.2135/Bang/2016 1, George Square, 2012-13 Glasgow, Scotland G2 1AL, United K…

Sri. Shivalingaiah vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/52084/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…ablished, imposition of fees would become illegal. 266 (iv) Delhi Race Club Vs. Union of India9 “35. In the light of the tests laid down in Hingir-Rampur [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201] , it is manifest that the true test to determine the character of a levy, delineating “tax” from “fee”, is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose intended to be achieved. In the instant case, it is plain from the scheme of the Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and management of horse racing. Such a regula…

Sapthagiri Builders & Developers vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/15/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…ablished, imposition of fees would become illegal. 266 (iv) Delhi Race Club Vs. Union of India9 “35. In the light of the tests laid down in Hingir-Rampur [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201] , it is manifest that the true test to determine the character of a levy, delineating “tax” from “fee”, is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose intended to be achieved. In the instant case, it is plain from the scheme of the Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and management of horse racing. Such a regula…

Sri. Al Muthaiah vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/17048/2018HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…ablished, imposition of fees would become illegal. 266 (iv) Delhi Race Club Vs. Union of India9 “35. In the light of the tests laid down in Hingir-Rampur [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201] , it is manifest that the true test to determine the character of a levy, delineating “tax” from “fee”, is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose intended to be achieved. In the instant case, it is plain from the scheme of the Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and management of horse racing. Such a regula…

M/S Fountain Real Estates and Developers vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/24906/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…ablished, imposition of fees would become illegal. 266 (iv) Delhi Race Club Vs. Union of India9 “35. In the light of the tests laid down in Hingir-Rampur [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201] , it is manifest that the true test to determine the character of a levy, delineating “tax” from “fee”, is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose intended to be achieved. In the instant case, it is plain from the scheme of the Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and management of horse racing. Such a regula…

M/S Esteem Icon vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/9581/2018HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…ablished, imposition of fees would become illegal. 266 (iv) Delhi Race Club Vs. Union of India9 “35. In the light of the tests laid down in Hingir-Rampur [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201] , it is manifest that the true test to determine the character of a levy, delineating “tax” from “fee”, is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose intended to be achieved. In the instant case, it is plain from the scheme of the Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and management of horse racing. Such a regula…

Omar Farook vs. State of Karnataka

WP/41409/2018HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…ablished, imposition of fees would become illegal. 266 (iv) Delhi Race Club Vs. Union of India9 “35. In the light of the tests laid down in Hingir-Rampur [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201] , it is manifest that the true test to determine the character of a levy, delineating “tax” from “fee”, is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose intended to be achieved. In the instant case, it is plain from the scheme of the Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and management of horse racing. Such a regula…

M/S Sobha Limited vs. State of Karnataka

WP/13495/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…ablished, imposition of fees would become illegal. 266 (iv) Delhi Race Club Vs. Union of India9 “35. In the light of the tests laid down in Hingir-Rampur [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201] , it is manifest that the true test to determine the character of a levy, delineating “tax” from “fee”, is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose intended to be achieved. In the instant case, it is plain from the scheme of the Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and management of horse racing. Such a regula…

Tranquil Realty Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka

WP/8984/2020HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…ablished, imposition of fees would become illegal. 266 (iv) Delhi Race Club Vs. Union of India9 “35. In the light of the tests laid down in Hingir-Rampur [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201] , it is manifest that the true test to determine the character of a levy, delineating “tax” from “fee”, is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose intended to be achieved. In the instant case, it is plain from the scheme of the Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and management of horse racing. Such a regula…

M/S Sobha Highrise Ventures Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka

WP/28990/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…ablished, imposition of fees would become illegal. 266 (iv) Delhi Race Club Vs. Union of India9 “35. In the light of the tests laid down in Hingir-Rampur [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201] , it is manifest that the true test to determine the character of a levy, delineating “tax” from “fee”, is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose intended to be achieved. In the instant case, it is plain from the scheme of the Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and management of horse racing. Such a regula…

Puravankara Limited vs. State of Karnataka

WP/57893/2018HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…ablished, imposition of fees would become illegal. 266 (iv) Delhi Race Club Vs. Union of India9 “35. In the light of the tests laid down in Hingir-Rampur [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201] , it is manifest that the true test to determine the character of a levy, delineating “tax” from “fee”, is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose intended to be achieved. In the instant case, it is plain from the scheme of the Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and management of horse racing. Such a regula…