Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs India Exchange Traders' Association on 21 March, 1991

Reckitt & Colman Of India Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 February, 2000

On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. India Exchange Traders' Association [1992] 197 ITR 356' at page 382. In this particular case, the Calcutta High Court upheld the declaratory validity of Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules on the consideration of a latter amendment to the Wealth Tax Act by inserting Schedule-III to the Act almost in the same manner, in which Rule 1D had earlier been enacted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Krish Developers, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 19 August, 2013

5.2 Thus, according to this decision, even 10% of commercial area can be allowed whereas, Appellant's shops area is less than 10% of the total housing project or residential area. Therefore, the issue regarding applicability of provision of law under clause (d) of sub- section (10) of section 80IB of Act, is relevant for the housing project approved after 01.04.2005 and it cannot be presumed to be decisive as applicable for the old housing project approved much earlier than amended provision of law prospectively. Further, the arguments of the Ld.AR is worth acceptable that judicial consistency has to be maintained hence it would be unjustifiable on the part of successor Appellate Authority to interpret the applicability of law with different approach or on the basis of strange-logic, specially when facts are identical and there is no perversity of interpretative- understanding of the same set of facts. It is worthwhile to mention that in interpreting a provision, it will not be proper to look at a piece of subsequent legislation unless there is some ambiguity or obscurity. However, subsequent legislation may be looked at in order to see what is the proper interpretation to be put upon the earlier Act where the earlier Act is obscure or ambiguous or readily capable of more than one interpretation vide CIT Vs. Deepchand Kishanlal (1990) 183 ITR 299 (Kar); CIT Vs. India Exchange Trader's Association (1992) 197 ITR 356 (Cal). Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case viz-a-viz decision of Hon'ble ITATs, 4 ITA No.1002/M/11 A.Y.07-08 Krish Developers specially of jurisdictional ITAT and decisions of fellow worthy CIT(Appeals)-25 and 27 and predecessors Ld. CIT(A), I hold that the Appellant is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB( 10) and therefore AO is directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the Appellant of Rs. 27,09,199/-.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1