What is Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas authority for?

A statute levies tax by a charging section that creates liability, and then provides machinery for assessment, recovery, and penalties.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 133A, Section 234A, Section 234C, Section 244A.

Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas (8 ITR 442)

Q: How many judgments cite Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas?

31 judgments on BharatTax cite Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas (8 ITR 442), spanning 2010 to 2025.

PRANATI BUILDCON, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT CEN CIR ,KOTA, 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

…edents Some land mark judicial precedents are as under (1) J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO 1994 taxmann.com 370 (SC). (ii) Gurshai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC). (ii) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT (1955) 27 ITR 20 (SC) (iv) CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC) 9 Pranati Buildcon, Kota. under: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) held as "It is well-known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is created or fixed and then proceeds to provide the machinery to make the liability effective. It, therefore, provid…

HIRALAL VIJAWAT , BHAWANIMANDI,BHAWANIMANDI vs. ACIT / DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA, KOTA

ITA 614/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (VC)\rFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, SR. DR\r

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69C

…nd mark judicial precedents are as under\r\n(i) J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO 1994 taxmann.com 370 (SC).\r\n(ii) Gurshai Saigal v. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC).\r\n(iii) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC).\r\n(iv) CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC).\r\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) held as\r\nunder:-\r\n\"It is well-known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section\r\nby which a liability is created or fixed and then proceeds to provide the machinery to\r\nmake the liability effective. It, therefore, provides the mac…

PARSHAVNATH ASSOCIATES, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, 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

…precedents. Some land mark judicial precedents are as under, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO 1994 taxmann.com 370 (SC). (i) Gurshai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC). ()India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC). (iv) CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) held as under: "It is well-known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is created or fixed and then proceeds to provide the machinery to make the liability effective. It, therefore, provides the machinery for the as…

PARSHWANATH BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, 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

…precedents. Some land mark judicial precedents are as under, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO 1994 taxmann.com 370 (SC). (i) Gurshai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC). ()India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC). (iv) CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) held as under: "It is well-known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is created or fixed and then proceeds to provide the machinery to make the liability effective. It, therefore, provides the machinery for the as…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…led to take all the points before the assessing authority. The appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. M/s. Small Industries Development Bank Of India.; A. Y.2016-17 2. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940)8 ITR 442(PC) and S. Narayanappav CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), the assessing officer is required only to reach prima facie or tentative belief. At the stage when reasons are recorded u/s 148(2), the Assessing Officer is not expected to hold an enquiry, with the participation of the assessee, and come to a final determination that the amount in question repres…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs. OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

ITA/52/2024HC Delhi03 Apr 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

…fail. 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. IRC [1926 AC 37 (HL)] , CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [(1939-40) 67 IA 239 : (1940) 52 LW 234 : (1940) 8 ITR 442] , Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax [(1955) 27 ITR 20 (SC)] and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [(1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC)] ; CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons [(1994) 6 SCC 623] ; CIT v. National Taj Traders [(1980) 1 SCC 370 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 124] ; Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CTO [(1981) 4 SCC 578 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 3 : (198…

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

C.A. No.-000911-000911 - 2022Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 29096 OF 2019) Income Tax Officer …Appellant(s) Versus Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia …Respondent(s) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 912 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 29109 OF 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 913 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 29115 OF 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 914 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 29116 OF 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 915 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 29118 OF 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 916 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 29119 OF 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2022 Page 1 of 67 Digitally signed by N…

LEKSHMI TRADERS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/2/2018HC Kerala02 Nov 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: LEKSHMI TRADERSFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 132Section 158B

…hinery provisions so that the charge does not fail. 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. IRC [1926] AC 37, CIT v. Mahaliram Ram jidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC), India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT (1955] 27 [TR 20 (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT (1963] 48 ITR (SC) 1; CWT v. Sharean Kumar Swarup and Sons [1994] 6 SCC 6231; CIT v. National Taj Traders [1980] 1 SCC 3702; Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1981] 48 STC 466 (SC)). Francis Bennion in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Ed., Lexis Ne…