Udaipur, Rajasthan v. Mcdowell and Co. Limited

10 SCC 755Reported decision2009#1699 most cited

What is Udaipur, Rajasthan v. Mcdowell and Co. Limited authority for?

When specific words of a class or category are followed by general words, the general words are interpreted to include only things of the same kind as the specific words. This principle is known as ejusdem generis.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2019.

Also referred to as

Udaipur Rajasthan v McDowell and Co Limited · ejusdem generis · general words · specific words · statutory interpretation · legislative intent · tax levy

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Udaipur, Rajasthan v. Mcdowell and Co. Limited

M/S Canara Minerals Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka

WP/13803/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…interpreted by application of the principle of ejusdem generis. In this regard, reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan vs. Mcdowell and Co. Limited [(2009) 10 SCC 755] (Mcdowell and Co.); M.K.Ranganathan vs. Government of Madras [AIR 1955 SC 604] (M.K.Ranganathan) and M/s.Parakh Foods Limited vs. State of A.P. [AIR (2008) SCC 2012] (M/s.Parakh Foods Limited). He contended that the expression ‘a body’ to be notified by the State Government must be an instrumentality of the State Government or a body which…

Bellary Mining Corporation Ltd vs. State of Karnataka

WP/60230/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…interpreted by application of the principle of ejusdem generis. In this regard, reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan vs. Mcdowell and Co. Limited [(2009) 10 SCC 755] (Mcdowell and Co.); M.K.Ranganathan vs. Government of Madras [AIR 1955 SC 604] (M.K.Ranganathan) and M/s.Parakh Foods Limited vs. State of A.P. [AIR (2008) SCC 2012] (M/s.Parakh Foods Limited). He contended that the expression ‘a body’ to be notified by the State Government must be an instrumentality of the State Government or a body which…

Oswal Agro Mills Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

ITA - 41 / 2000HC Delhi07 Feb 2014
For Appellant: Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 260A(1)Section 43B

…Section 43B was applicable, the arranging a bank guarantee would not amount to actual 2014:DHC:738-DB ITA No.41/2000 Page 23 of 24 payment of the said liability. The decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mcdowell and Co. Ltd.: (2009) 10 SCC 755, squarely answers the point in issue against the assessee. In that case the Supreme Court held as under:- “15. We shall first deal with the question whether furnishing of bank guarantee amounts to actual payment and fulfils the conditions stipulated in Section 43-B of the Act. 16. The requirement of Section 43-B of the Act is the actual pay…

Oswal Agro Mills Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

ITA/41/2000HC Delhi07 Feb 2014
For Appellant: Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 260A(1)Section 43B

…Section 43B was applicable, the arranging a bank guarantee would not amount to actual 2014:DHC:738-DB ITA No.41/2000 Page 23 of 24 payment of the said liability. The decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mcdowell and Co. Ltd.: (2009) 10 SCC 755, squarely answers the point in issue against the assessee. In that case the Supreme Court held as under:- “15. We shall first deal with the question whether furnishing of bank guarantee amounts to actual payment and fulfils the conditions stipulated in Section 43-B of the Act. 16. The requirement of Section 43-B of the Act is the actual pay…

Sri Vidya Manohara Teertha Swamigalu vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/17370/2012HC Karnataka02 Jan 2013

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

…DAYAL CHANDRAMOHAN AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UP & OTHERS – (1982) 1 SCC 39; A.K. GOPALAN vs STATE OF MADRAS – AIR 1950 SC 27; INDIAN BANK’S ASSOCIATION vs DEVAKALA CONSULTANCY – AIR 2004 SC 2615; COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MACDOWELL & CO. LTD. – (2009) 10 SCC 755. 17.1 On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted that Article 26 of the Constitution protects the freedom of every religious denomination to manage its religious affairs. He submitted the matadhipathi manages the properties and assets of a religious institution on behalf of the members of denomination as their represent…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

ITTA/41/2000HC Telangana01 Dec 2011
For Appellant: Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 260A(1)Section 43B

…en assuming that Section 43B was applicable, the arranging a bank guarantee would not amount to actual ITA No.41/2000 Page 23 of 24 payment of the said liability. The decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mcdowell and Co. Ltd.: (2009) 10 SCC 755, squarely answers the point in issue against the assessee. In that case the Supreme Court held as under:- “15. We shall first deal with the question whether furnishing of bank guarantee amounts to actual payment and fulfils the conditions stipulated in Section 43-B of the Act. 16. The requirement of Section 43-B of the Act is the actual pay…