← 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

Tarun Kumar Ratan Singh Rathi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 32(1), Mumbai

ITA 2695/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

Income Tax Act and it is also said that equity and tax are strangers to each other, still this Court has often observed that purposive interpretation should be given to the provisions of the Act In the case of Oxford University Press v. Commissioner of Income ... this Court has observed that a purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Act should be given while considering a claim for exemption from tax. It has also been said that harmonious construction of the provisions which subserve the object and purpose should also be made while construing

Padma Rao, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 61(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2759/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 28Section 4Section 56(2)(xi)

which is not permissible in law. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that Section 32(1)(iv) should be given purposive interpretation to include "profession", has thus to be rejected.” 24. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that the word “business” occurring in clause

Housing Devp. Fin.Corpn. Ltd vs. The ADIT Cir. 1(1)

ITA 552/MUM/2004[98-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

1 ITA 552/Mum/2004 Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI

Sanghamitra Rural Financial Services, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 745/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 8

ITA Nos.744 & 745/Bang/2023 Sanghamitra Rural Financial Services, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

Sanghamitra Rural Financial Services, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 744/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 11Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 8

ITA Nos.744 & 745/Bang/2023 Sanghamitra Rural Financial Services, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

M/S. M. P. Council for Vocational Education & Training Bhopal, Bhopal vs. The CIT (Exempyion) Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 177/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 143(3)

with that of the assessing officer were two well established principles of law. In view of the above and going by the principle of purposive interpretation of statues, an assessment proceeding which is pending in appeal before the appellate authority should be deemed to be 'assessment proceedings pending before ... Indore, following the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in Shri Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust Vs. ITO (Supra), has accepted in principle that going by the purposive interpretation of statues, an assessment proceeding which is pending in appeal before the appellate- authority should be deemed to be 'assessment proceedings pending before

M/S. M. P. Council for Vocational Education & Training Bhopal, Bhopal vs. The CIT (Exempyion) Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 176/IND/2022[22016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 143(3)

with that of the assessing officer were two well established principles of law. In view of the above and going by the principle of purposive interpretation of statues, an assessment proceeding which is pending in appeal before the appellate authority should be deemed to be 'assessment proceedings pending before ... Indore, following the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in Shri Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust Vs. ITO (Supra), has accepted in principle that going by the purposive interpretation of statues, an assessment proceeding which is pending in appeal before the appellate- authority should be deemed to be 'assessment proceedings pending before

Jajoo Hygiene P Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT/DCIT 2(1), Indore

ITA 161/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jajoo Hygiene Pvt. Acit/Dcit, Ltd., 2(1), 304-A, Indore. बनाम/ Subhlabh Residency, Khajrana Chouraha, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadcj 0657 Q Assessee By Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca & Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 288BSection 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(viib)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Osianama Learning Experience Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6796/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 59

viib) and the Hon’ble Finance Minister speech that it was anti-tax avoidance measure and to take unexplained money on investment and therefore purposive interpretation should be given. However, even though there might not be any intention of tax evasion or anti tax avoidance, but we are unable ... given strict interpretation, especially where words of the statute are clear and unambiguous then recourse cannot be taken to principles of purposive interpretation, even if the literal interpretation results in hardship and inconvenience to the tax payer. The purposive construction can only be resorted to when there is ambiguity

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. H K Designs (India) LLP, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10A

direct result of export but from the Bank Deposits etc., and therefore eligible for 100% deduction. 36. We have to take a purposive interpretation of the Scheme of the Act for the exemption under Section 1 A/10-B of the Act and for the object of granting such incentive ... selected the Parliament, the play-in-the-joints is allowed to the Legislature and the liberal interpretation of t exemption provisions to make a purposive interpretation, was also propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court the following cases:— [I] In Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188/62 Taxman

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7104/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14A

hold that in exercising its power under Chapter XIX-A it has almost an unbridled power to arrive at a settlement. This exercise of purposive interpretation by looking into the object and scheme of the Act and legislative intendment would arise, in our opinion, if the language of the Statute

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

direct result of export but from the Bank Deposits etc., and is therefore eligible for 100% deduction. 36. We have to take a purposive interpretation of the Scheme of the Act for the exemption under Section 10-A/ 10-B of the Act and for the object of granting such ... Parliament, the play-in-the-joints is allowed to the Legislature and the liberal interpretation of the exemption provisions to make a purposive interpretation, was also propounded by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- I] In Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

direct result of export but from the Bank Deposits etc., and is therefore eligible for 100% deduction. 36. We have to take a purposive interpretation of the Scheme of the Act for the exemption under Section 10-A/ 10-B of the Act and for the object of granting such ... Parliament, the play-in-the-joints is allowed to the Legislature and the liberal interpretation of the exemption provisions to make a purposive interpretation, was also propounded by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- I] In Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay

DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Syntel Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1972/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit-3(2)(1), Syntel Private Limited, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Unit No. 112 Sdf Iv, Seepz Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri East Mumbai-400096. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 8305 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Harsh M. KapadiaFor Respondent: Mr. Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 80A(5)

from the Bank Deposits etc., and is therefore el Deposits etc., and is therefore eligible for 100% deduction. 36. We have to take a purposive interpretation of the Scheme of the Act for 36. We have to take a purposive interpretation of the Scheme ... have to take a purposive interpretation of the Scheme of the Act for the exemption under Section 10 the exemption under Section 10-A/10-B of the Act and for the object of B of the Act and for the object of granting such incentive to the special class of assessees

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1518/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234C

hold that in exercising its power under Chapter XIX-A it has almost an unbridled power to arrive at a settlement. This exercise of purposive interpretation by looking into the object and scheme of the Act and legislative intendment would arise, in our opinion, if the language of the Statute

Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1240/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234C

hold that in exercising its power under Chapter XIX-A it has almost an unbridled power to arrive at a settlement. This exercise of purposive interpretation by looking into the object and scheme of the Act and legislative intendment would arise, in our opinion, if the language of the Statute

Ashutosh Sinha, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17
Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

given strict interpretation, especially where words of the statute are clear and unambiguous then recourse cannot be taken to principles of purposive interpretation, even if the literal interpretation results in hardship and inconvenience to the tax payer. The purposive construction can only be resorted to when there is ambiguity

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1735/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

rigour of pre-amendment law, and when such a benefit appears to have been the objective pursued by the legislature, it would a purposive interpretation giving it a retrospective effect but when a tax legislation imposes a liability or a burden, the effect of such a legislative provision can only

Transporter Industry Internatinal Gmbh, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT International Taxation, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1240/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1240/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Transporter Industry बिधम/ Dcit, Int Tax Circle- International Gmbh. 4(1)(2) Vs. Kalisrabe 57, 74076 Air India Building, Heilbronn, Germany, Pin- Nariman Point, Mumbai- 999999. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafct0013Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ao/Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 25.04.2021 Pursuant To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 18.03.2021. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature, So Dismissed. 3. Ground No. 3 Is A Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Have Passed The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Order, After The Due Date Prescribed In Section 92(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Act. Therefore, The Assessee Is Challenging The Action Of The Tpo In Passing Transfer Pricing Order After Limitation Period By Citing The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court (Db) In The Case Of M/S. Saint Gobain

For Appellant: Shri Nikil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. AR)
Section 153Section 3Section 92Section 92C

hold that in exercising its power under Chapter XIX-A it has almost an unbridled power to arrive at a settlement. This exercise of purposive interpretation by looking into the object 12 A.Y. 2016-17 Transporter Industry International and scheme of the Act and legislative intendment would arise

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND