← All Phrases

“purposive interpretation”

MiscellaneousStatutory InterpretationStatutory Interpretation204 judgments

The decision most relied on for purposive interpretation is CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1), cited in 452 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on purposive interpretation

CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala
252 ITR 1 · 2001 · Supreme Court
452
citing judgments

Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act is mandatory. Tax statutes are to be interpreted strictly, allowing no room for purposive interpretation.

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT
196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court
289
citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others
118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd.
304 ITR 308 · 2008 · Supreme Court
229
citing judgments

A clarificatory or declaratory amendment to a statutory provision has retrospective effect from the date the original provision came into force, as its purpose is to clarify existing law rather than introduce new law.

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT
108 ITR 345 · 1977 · Supreme Court
209
citing judgments

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT
280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court
182
citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

CIT v. J.H. Gotla
156 ITR 323 · 1985 · Supreme Court
176
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that for income tax purposes, the term 'income' includes 'loss,' allowing for the set-off of a spouse's or minor child's business losses when their income is clubbed with the assessee. This decision emphasizes interpreting tax statutes, especially benevolent provisions, by considering the legislative scheme over a strict literal construction.

(ii) CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers
3 SCC 57 · 2003 · Reported
131
citing judgments

Courts must reject interpretations that defeat the plain intention of the legislature, even if language is imprecise. A statute must be read as a whole, construing provisions harmoniously to avoid rendering any part otiose or a dead letter.

Judgments citing purposive interpretation

Dcm Shriram Industris Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2166/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 14ASection 80Section 92C

reduce the effect of emissions, which impact clean environment and leads to global warming. Thus, if we apply the test of purposive interpretation, it can be seen that the object of REC and carbon credits are 33 akin in nature and operate on similar underlying principles. Further, Section 115BBG

ITO Ward-53(3), New Delhi vs. Anju Madhan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9321/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53ASection 54

property within the stipulated period, which was taxable as long term capital gain while on the amount spent, relief should be granted. Principle of purposive interpretation should be applied to subserve the object and more particularly when one was concerned with exemption from payment of tax. The assessee, therefore, succeeded

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle - 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2403/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 2398/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

placed on the Assessee's own decision for AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 1718/Mum/2020) by the co-ordinate bench wherein it had taken a purposive interpretation of Rule 5 of the First Schedule and allowed deduction of expense already disallowed in earlier years. Reference is made to paragraph ... Further, following the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case (supra), we agree to undertake a purposive interpretation of Rule 5 of the First Schedule to allow deduction of expense already disallowed in the preceding years since interpretation which leads to absurdity are required

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 1450/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

placed on the Assessee's own decision for AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 1718/Mum/2020) by the co-ordinate bench wherein it had taken a purposive interpretation of Rule 5 of the First Schedule and allowed deduction of expense already disallowed in earlier years. Reference is made to paragraph ... Further, following the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case (supra), we agree to undertake a purposive interpretation of Rule 5 of the First Schedule to allow deduction of expense already disallowed in the preceding years since interpretation which leads to absurdity are required

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited (Tagic), Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department

ITA 1432/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

Ntt Managed Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1165/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1165/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Ntt Managed Services India Private Limited, The Dcit, Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. Pin 500 081 Pan Aarcs7517G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By -None- राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Mathivanan Sa, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Sri Mathivanan SA, Sr. AR
Section 108(8)Section 143(1)Section 80J

filed prior to processing of the return. Ground No.6 The learned Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to apply the principle of purposive interpretation to deduction provisions, and instead adopted a strictly literal approach, thereby defeating the legislative intent of section 80JJAA which seeks to incentivize employment generation

Newage Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2307/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

meaning of section 56(2)(viia) of IT Act. However, the AO rejected the contention, stating that the language of the provision is clear, purposive interpretation of provision is not required when the language of the section is very clear and section 56(2)(viia) does not exclude fresh allotment

Gaurav Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2306/KOL/2025[205-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

meaning of section 56(2)(viia) of IT Act. However, the AO rejected the contention, stating that the language of the provision is clear, purposive interpretation of provision is not required when the language of the section is very clear and section 56(2)(viia) does not exclude fresh allotment

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune vs. Sachin Govind Apte, Pune

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1720/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 54F

extracted hereinbelow:— "Each word employed in a statute must take colour from the purport and object for which it is used. The principle of purposive interpretation, therefore, should be taken recourse to." 9.7 Thus, the preposition of law laid down by Hon’ble High Courts is that Trade Advances

Madhur Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1784/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)(viia)

meaning of section 56(2)(viia) of IT Act. However, the AO rejected the contention, stating that the language of the provision is clear, purposive interpretation of provision is not required when the language of the section is very clear and section 56(2)(viia) does not exclude fresh allotment

Pratima Reddy Muthu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1310/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1310/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Pratima Reddy Muthu, Hyderabad – 500 034. The Acit, Circle-14(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. Pan Aaopm8335J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Yogesh K Jagia & Sri Amit Sood, Advocates. राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri Yogesh K Jagia And Sri Amit Sood, AdvocatesFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 159(1)Section 159(6)Section 171(1)Section 2(11)Section 2(29)Section 250Section 28

That the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeal) under section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 being contrary to the schematic and purposive interpretation of provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and perverse of record is liable to be set aside. 2) That Ld. CIT(Appeal) failed to appreciate

Star Delta Transformers Ltd, Govindpura Bhopal vs. ACIT/DCIT 1(1), Aaykar Bhawan

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 124/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Star Delta Transformers Acit/Dcit 1(1) Ltd., Bhopal 92-A Industrial Area बनाम/ Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaccs0399D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271A

does not make a specific mention of any date/deadline by which the assessee must pay tax but there has to be a rational and purposive interpretation of condition/section. According to Ld. DR, had the assessee made payment of tax before filing return or even before completion of assessment/issuance of show

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 980/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80J

workers, squarely falls within the category of employers who fulfils the requirement of the provisions of the impugned section. Therefore, a liberal and purposive interpretation is required, consistent with the object of the statute. The AO’s narrow technical approach frustrates the very purpose for which section 80JJAA

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80J

workers, squarely falls within the category of employers who fulfils the requirement of the provisions of the impugned section. Therefore, a liberal and purposive interpretation is required, consistent with the object of the statute. The AO’s narrow technical approach frustrates the very purpose for which section 80JJAA

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 652/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Smt. Kavita Jha, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

ACIT(Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1823/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1822 & 1823/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2016-2017 & 2018-2019)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

expression "cess" facially lends a different colour to all the three expressions. [Para 143] ■ "Fee, cess and any other consideration" has to receive a purposive interpretation, in the present context. If fee or cess or such consideration is collected for the purpose of an activity, by a state department

ACIT(Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1822/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1822 & 1823/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2016-2017 & 2018-2019)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

expression "cess" facially lends a different colour to all the three expressions. [Para 143] ■ "Fee, cess and any other consideration" has to receive a purposive interpretation, in the present context. If fee or cess or such consideration is collected for the purpose of an activity, by a state department

M/S. Tega Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1875/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

provisions in place of literal interpretation. For the purpose of section 80-IA(4) of the Act, it is also imperative to consider purposive interpretation of the provisions. The provisions were incorporated for development of infrastructure facility in the country and were introduced with effect from 01.04.1991 when the Indian

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Sector 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 339/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

expression "cess" facially lends a different colour to all the three expressions. 144. "Fee, cess and any other consideration" has to receive a purposive interpretation, in the present context. If fee or cess or such consideration is collected for the purpose of an activity, by a state department or entity