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

8 ITR 442Reported decision1940#3814 most cited

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

Machinery provisions in tax statutes are interpreted like any other statute, aiming to uphold the statute's purpose rather than defeat it.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Whitney v. IRC · CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas · machinery provisions · statutory interpretation · tax law · object and purpose of statute · interpret machinery provisions

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 153a(1)(a)section 153c(1)section 244asection 132(1)section 153a(1)section 271aacsection 158section 69bsection 149documents seizedsatisfaction noteinterest u/s 234a

Judgments citing Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Metaliks Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1481/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43B

…m the concept of Book profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act. On the contrary, the sections which impose the charge or levy, should be strictly construed and this position though was reiterated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442; and subsequently by the Supreme Court in (PC) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT[1955] 27 ITR 20 in the case of India United Mills and thereafter the various other judgments, still prevails as the correct law. The entire mechanism for the computation of book profit is clearly set out in sub-section (1) of section 115JB read with Explanation thereto.…

M/S Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 1153/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43B

…m the concept of Book profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act. On the contrary, the sections which impose the charge or levy, should be strictly construed and this position though was reiterated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442; and subsequently by the Supreme Court in (PC) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT[1955] 27 ITR 20 in the case of India United Mills and thereafter the various other judgments, still prevails as the correct law. The entire mechanism for the computation of book profit is clearly set out in sub-section (1) of section 115JB read with Explanation thereto.…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 478/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234C

…ons which ITA No.439 & 478/Kol/2016 A.Y 2010-11 Tata Metaliks Ltd. Vs DCIT Cir.3(1)/ITO Wd.3(2), Kol. Page 12 impose the charge or levy, should be strictly construed and this position though was reiterated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442; and subsequently by the Supreme Court in (PC) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT[1955] 27 ITR 20 in the case of India United Mills and thereafter the various other judgments, still prevails as the correct law. The entire mechanism for the computation of book profit is clearly set out in sub-section (1) of section 115JB read with Explanation thereto.…

Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 439/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234C

…ons which ITA No.439 & 478/Kol/2016 A.Y 2010-11 Tata Metaliks Ltd. Vs DCIT Cir.3(1)/ITO Wd.3(2), Kol. Page 12 impose the charge or levy, should be strictly construed and this position though was reiterated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442; and subsequently by the Supreme Court in (PC) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT[1955] 27 ITR 20 in the case of India United Mills and thereafter the various other judgments, still prevails as the correct law. The entire mechanism for the computation of book profit is clearly set out in sub-section (1) of section 115JB read with Explanation thereto.…

Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai vs. M/S. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through Its Manager

C.A. No.-002165-002165 - 2012Supreme Court31 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14A

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2165 OF 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER … RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A.No.1429 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 36560 of 2012, C.A. No. 117 of 2015, C.A. No. 5101 of 2012, C.A. No. 118 of 2015, C.A. No. 6727 of 2015, C.A. No. 119 of 2015, C.A. No. 116 of 2015, C.A. No. 194 of 2015, C.A. No. 114 of 2015, C.A. No. 120 of 2015, C.A. No. 7395 of 2012, C.A. No. 7394 of 2012, C.A. No. 121 of 2015,…

Govind Agarwal. HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 826/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘जी’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) ACIT, CC-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti CHS Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAKPA 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) AND आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) ACIT, CC-32, Mumbai Vs. Shr…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana

C.A. No.-003958-003958 - 2014Supreme Court12 Mar 2014
Section 132Section 158B

…Page 1 JUDGMENT 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3958 OF 2014 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C.)NO.10542 OF 2011) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - III APPELLANT VERSUS M/S.CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA RESPONDENT WITH C.A.NO.3959 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.11943 of 2011 WITH C.A.NO.3960 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.17662 of 2011 WITH C.A.NO.3961 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.17656 of 2011 WITH C.A.NO.3962 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.17661 of 2011 WITH C.A.NO.3963 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.2804 of 2012 WITH C.A.NO.3964 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)N…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana

C.A. No.-003958-003958 - 2014Supreme Court12 Mar 2014
Section 132Section 158B

…Page 1 JUDGMENT 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3958 OF 2014 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C.)NO.10542 OF 2011) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - III APPELLANT VERSUS M/S.CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA RESPONDENT WITH C.A.NO.3959 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.11943 of 2011 WITH C.A.NO.3960 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.17662 of 2011 WITH C.A.NO.3961 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.17656 of 2011 WITH C.A.NO.3962 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.17661 of 2011 WITH C.A.NO.3963 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.2804 of 2012 WITH C.A.NO.3964 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)N…

Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Inc

Appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA/491/2008HC Delhi30 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 234B

…s which are construed 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.[See Whitney vs. IRC 1926 AC 37, CIT vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8 ITR 442 (PC), Indian United Mills Ltd. vs. CEPT (1955) 1 SCR 810 and Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT (1963) 3 SCR 893]. But it must also be realized that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence…

Director of Income Tax vs. Mitsubishi Corporation

Appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA - 297 / 2010HC Delhi30 Aug 2010
Section 143(2)Section 234B

…ovisions which are construed 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. [See Whitney vs. IRC 1926 AC 37, CIT vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8 ITR 442 (PC), Indian United vs. CEPT (1955) 1 SCR 810 and Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT (1963) 3 SCR 893]. But it must also be realized that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage in…

Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Inc

Appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA - 491 / 2008HC Delhi30 Aug 2010
Section 143(2)Section 234B

…s which are construed 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.[See Whitney vs. IRC 1926 AC 37, CIT vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8 ITR 442 (PC), Indian United Mills Ltd. vs. CEPT (1955) 1 SCR 810 and Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT (1963) 3 SCR 893]. But it must also be realized that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence…