Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Aathmika Holdings Pvt Ltd, Chennai on 29 July, 2025 cites

Commnr. Of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company on 30 July, 2018

i) The principles governing the interpretation of taxation statutes have been authoritatively laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar and Company and Others [(2018) 9 SCC 1]. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that in taxation statutes, neither contextual nor purposive interpretation can be applied, nor can external materials be relied upon to discern intent. The statute must be interpreted based solely on its plain and clear language, with no room for intendment, presumptions, or equity. Only the explicit wording of the law should guide its application, and nothing should be added, inferred, or implied unless absolutely necessary for its operation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 2183 - N V Ramana - Full Document

D.R. Venkatachalam & Ors vs Dy. Transport Commissioner & Others on 10 December, 1976

DR's plea which is to read in and import new words and substitute the negative value with NIL/face value or it will tantamount to us usurping legislative function. It is settled that legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretation. Casus Omissus means 'the case omitted'. A casus omission can in no case be supplied by court of law/Tribunal, for that would be to make law. It is settled that courts are not entitled to usurp legislative function under the disguise of interpretation [refer Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in D.R. Venkatachalia vs Dy Transport Commissioner (1977) 2 SCC 273]. As noted, while interpreting a provision, the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary, [refer Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in M/s Popular Trading Company (2000) (5) SCC 515] In the light of the discussion, we fully concur with the reasoned decision of Ld CIT(A) and hold that that the adoption of the resultant negative value, as computed in accordance with Rule 11UA, doesn't warrant any substitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 120 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Sri Sakthi Textiles Limited, ... vs Dcit Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore on 1 February, 2021

19. Our above view finds support from the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Sakthi Textiles Limited vs. DCIT (188 ITD 946). In the decided case, the assessee had issued fresh equity capital having face value of Rs.10 at a premium of Rs. 142 per share. The PCIT in his order passed u/s 263 of the Act directed the AO to redo the original assessment after verifying the taxability of share premium u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. In the proceedings u/s 143(3) / 263, the assessee filed a valuation report which was obtained subsequently to support the fair market value of shares on the date of issuance and it was accordingly contended that, since the FMV of shares was more than the price at which the shares were issued, Section 56(2)(viib) could not be invoked. The AO inter alia rejected the valuation report by observing that the said report was not available at the time of issue of shares and it had been obtained subsequently from an independent Chartered Accountant.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next