What is UOI v. Onkar S. Kanwar authority for?

Where there is a conflict between provisions, interpretations that favour the assessee should be preferred. This principle aids in avoiding absurdity and reflecting legislative intent.

How many judgments cite UOI v. Onkar S. Kanwar?

34 judgments on BharatTax cite UOI v. Onkar S. Kanwar (258 ITR 761), spanning 2009 to 2025.

UOI v. Onkar S. Kanwar (258 ITR 761)

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/272/2008HC Telangana28 Nov 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

…R 323 (SC). It was also submitted that where two views are reasonably possible, the view in ITA Nos. 402/2005 & Others Page No.24 of 44 favour of the assessee should be preferred. For this proposition, reliance was placed on UOI v. Onkar S. Kanwar: 258 ITR 761 (SC) and CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd: 77 ITR 518. 28. Mr Syali, lastly, submitted that the amendments to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were introduced to mitigate the hardship caused and were in that sense curative and clarificatory. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra)…

SHRI JALENDRA SAHOO,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 9/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.09/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Shri Jalendra Sahoo, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), At-Kirtania, N.M.Padia, Bhubaneswar Bhogarai, Balasore-756081 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Blxps 3197 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(3)Section 37

…me Court of India that where ' there are two reasonable views the one favourable to the assessee has to be adopted. 1. CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Vs. CIT, 88 ITR 192 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. J.K. Hoisary Factory, 159 ITR 85 (SC) 3. Union of India Vs. Omkar S. Kanwar, 258 ITR 761 (SC) It is the law that the expenses incurred to earn a particular income is deductable and the net income which is the "real income" which comes to the pocket of the assessee is only taxable. Section. 37(1) of the IT. Act, 1961 reads : - "Any expenditure ( not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and not being in the na…

DCIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. ATEEV V GALA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1906/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit-17(2), Ateev V. Gala, R. No.217, 02Nd Floor, 575/A, The Orient Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Jamshed Road, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Matunga Mumbai-400019 Pan No.Aalpg6039N (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 10(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 64(2)

…) Rambhai L Patel vs CIT (2001) 252 ITR 846 (Guj) 8. The ld.AR lastly submitted that if two views are possible, the one beneficial to the assessee has to be adopted. For this proposition the ld.AR relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2002) 258 ITR 761 (SC) Union of India vs Onkar S Kanwar. 9. The ld.DR on the other hand relied upon the order of CIT(A) and submitted that the CIT(A) has analysed the case in detail at paragraph 6 of his order before confirming the order of the assessing officer. The CIT(A) has also considered the alternative submissions made by the assessee that his case is cove…

ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 7513/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…xmann.com 311 (Mumbai ITAT)( dt. May 18, 2016) Capgemini Business Services (India) Ltd [2016] 68 Taxmann.com 36 (Mumbai ITAT) (dt. February 29,2016) CIT vs. Vegetable Products (88 ITR 192)(SC) Mysore Minerals vs. CIT (239 ITR 775 (SC) UOI vs. Onkar S. Kanwar (258 ITR 761)(SC) Pradip J Mehta vs CIT (300 ITR 231)(SC) Mahindra & Mahindra vs DCIT (58 TTJ 567 (Mumbai ITAT) 10. The Ld. Senior Counsel requested for upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) in view of the aforesaid arguments and facts and circumstances of the case. 11. We have gone through the arguments made by both the sides, orders passed by the lower authori…

PREXUS HEALTH INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2975/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2011-12 Prexus Health India (P) Ltd., Acit, Circle- 20(1), Ra-4 (Shop), Inder Puri, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi – 110 012. Pan : Aadcp 7893 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vidur Puri, CAFor Respondent: Shri F. R. Meena, Sr.DR

Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(45)Section 28Section 44CSection 5

…urt was with reference to sections 80AA and 80AB of the 8 Act. Further, if there is a difference of opinion or two views are possible on an issue, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Onkar S Kunwar and Others reported in 258 ITR 761 (SC), ‘the view which is in favour of the assessee must be adopted. 12. In the light of the above judicial views and our reasoning, we hold that deduction u/s 10A of the Act is to be calculated before reducing the unabsorbed loss and depreciation from the profits of the undertaking. It is ordered accordingly.” 9. Respectfully following the decis…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)

Section 271

…resumed that two views are possible, the assessee cannot be faulted for adopting a view favourable to him in filing in his return. In this connection reliance is placed on Hon'bie Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India vs. OnkarS. Kunwar and Ors 258 ITR 761, in which at page 763, it was held as under: "It is settled law that if two views are possible then the one which is in favour of the assessee must be adopted". Hence, from this angle also, there was absolutely no justification on the part of the AO to impose penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) of I.T. Act just because the Assessee has adopted a favourable…

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…ion beneficial to the taxpayer should be accepted. Reference was made to the following cases: - CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.: 88 ITR 192 (SC) - CIT vs. J.K.Hosiery Factory : 159 ITR 85 (SC) - ACIT v. Thanthi Trust: 247 ITR 785 (SC) - UOI v. Onkar Kanwar : 258 ITR 761 (SC) - CIT v. A. J. Abraham Anthraper : 268 ITR 417 (Ker) - Vijay Omprakash Bansal v. CIT : 257 ITR 649 (Bom) - CIT v. L.G Balakrishnan: 255 ITR 339 (Mad) - CIT v. Quantas Airlines Ltd.: 256 ITR 84 (Del) Southern Roadways Ltd. vs. CWT: 251 ITR 213 (Mad) 22.34 Having regard to the legal position discussed supra, the Learned AR submitted that the…