Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

2 SCC 95Reported decision1998#17200 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2004 to 2025.

Judgments citing Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

PR. COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX -21 vs. M/S.REMFRY&SAGAR

ITA/199/2017HC Delhi31 Jan 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 37

…td. v. CIT, (1998) 2 SCC 95] , a fine imposed on the assessee under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was sought to be deducted as a business expenditure. This Court held : (Maddi Venkataraman case [Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1998) 2 SCC 95] , SCC p. 105, para 24) “24. Moreover, it will be against public policy to allow the benefit of deduction under one statute, of any expenditure incurred in violation of the provisions of another statute or any penalty imposed under another statute. In the instant Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:31.01.2025 18:41:55 Signature No…

PR. COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX -21 vs. M/S.REMFRY&SAGAR

ITA-199/2017HC Delhi31 Jan 2025
Section 37

…td. v. CIT, (1998) 2 SCC 95] , a fine imposed on the assessee under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was sought to be deducted as a business expenditure. This Court held : (Maddi Venkataraman case [Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1998) 2 SCC 95] , SCC p. 105, para 24) “24. Moreover, it will be against public policy to allow the benefit of deduction under one statute, of any expenditure incurred in violation of the provisions of another statute or any penalty imposed under another statute. In the instant Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:31.01.2025 18:41:55 Signature No…

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

C.A. No.-001554-001554 - 2022Supreme Court22 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 37(1)

…ived immorality / violation of public policy. Apex repeatedly relied on T.A. Quereshi (supra), M/s K.M. Jain (supra) and CIT v. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma31. We find that none of these judgments find 29 Biharilal Jaiswal v. CIT, (1996) 1 SCC 443. 30 (1998) 2 SCC 95. 31 I.T.R. No. 27 of 1999, Allahabad HC, dated 21.02.2008. 20 much favour with the case of the appellant. T.A. Quereshi addressed a business ‘loss’, not a business ‘expenditure’ as envisioned under Section 37(1). In M/s K.M. Jain, the ransom money paid to kidnappers of the employee of the assessee company was allowed deduction primari…

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

WP/39434/2013HC Karnataka03 Aug 2017

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

Section 1Section 2(1)

…the case of HAMDARD DAWAKHANA AND ANOTHER v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1960 SC 554. 14. He read out paragraph No.21 from the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of MITHILESH KUMARI AND ANOTHER v. PREM BEHARI KHARE reported in (1989) 2 SCC 95. It reads as follows: 25 “21. We read in Maxwell that it is a fundamental rule of English Law that no statute shall be construed to have retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly at the time of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication. A retrospective operation is, therefore, not to…

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PONDICHERRY vs. M/S. ACER INDIA LTD

C.A. No.-010185-010186 - 2003Supreme Court24 Sept 2004
For Respondent: M/s. ACER India Ltd
Section 11ASection 4

…erghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another, (1981) 4 SCC 173]. A consideration of public policy may also be relevant in interpreting and applying a taxing Act. [See Maddi Venkatraman & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1998) 2 SCC 95]. A provision enacted for the benefit of an assessee should be so construed which enables the assessee to get its benefit. [See Mysore Minerals Ltd., M.G. Road, Bangalore Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka, Bangalore (1999) 7 SCC 106] However, principle of purposive construction will be adhered to when a literal meani…

Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2 SCC 95) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax