“Section 7(5)(a)”

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD, NEW DEHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

statute is the rule of literal interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. If section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). 66. In Hiralal ... other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J ." 76. The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word, that is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

statute is the rule of literal interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. If section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). 66. In Hiralal ... other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J ." 76. The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word, that is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

statute is the rule of literal interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. If section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). 66. In Hiralal ... other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J ." 76. The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word, that is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

statute is the rule of literal interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. If section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). 66. In Hiralal ... other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J ." 76. The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word, that is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the\nrevenue stand dismissed

statute is the rule of\nliteral interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.\nIf section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on\nthe Adjudicating Authority (NCLT).\n66.\nIn Hiralal ... nother than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J .\"\n76.\nThe fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word,\nthat is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the\nrevenue stand dismissed

statute is the rule of\nliteral interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.\nIf section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on\nthe Adjudicating Authority (NCLT).\n66.\nIn Hiralal ... nother than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J .\"\n76. The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word,\nthat is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

statute is the rule of literal interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. If section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). 66. In Hiralal ... other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J ." 76. The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word, that is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that