Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue 1926 A C. 37, CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas

8 ITR 42Reported decision1940#25652 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 133ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 244ASection 69CSection 139

Issues it is cited on

section 244asection 69binterest u/s 234acomplete scrutinyaddition u/s 68unexplained expendituresection 56section 234asection 115bbsection 115bsection 69csection 133a

Judgments citing Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue 1926 A C. 37, CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas

Pranati Buildcon, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT Cen Cir, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hanedra Gargieya, Adv. (V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR a
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

…trued like any other statute. The machinery provisions must, no doubt, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue 1926 A C 37, CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 42 (PC), Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay. [1995] 27 ITR 20 (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT. Punjab, [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gursahai Saigal (supra) held as under:- "Those sections which impose the charge or levy should be strictly construed; but those which deal merely with…

Parshavnath Associates, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1358/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

…rued like any other statute. The machinery provisions must, no doubt, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue 1926 A C. 37, CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 42 (PC), Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay, [1995] 27 ITR 20 (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab, [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gursahal Saigal (supra) held as under: "Those sections which impose the charge or levy should be strictly construed, but those which deal merely with t…

Parshwanath Buildestate Private Limited, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1357/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

…rued like any other statute. The machinery provisions must, no doubt, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue 1926 A C. 37, CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 42 (PC), Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay, [1995] 27 ITR 20 (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab, [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gursahal Saigal (supra) held as under: "Those sections which impose the charge or levy should be strictly construed, but those which deal merely with t…

Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue 1926 A C. 37, CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas (8 ITR 42) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax