Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.57 seconds)
Dhanuka Laboratories Limited,New ... vs Acit Central Circle-2, New Delhi on 5 March, 2025 cites

Dhanuka Agritech Ltd., Delhi vs Acit, Circle-2, New Delhi on 24 March, 2023

6. The above observations are squarely applicable to the interpretation of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The declaration of law is clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is co- terminus with that of the Income Tax Officer, if that be so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate 9 ITA No. 826/Del/2023 Dhanuka Laboratories Ltd. Vs. ACIT authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the Income Tax Officer. No exception could be taken to this view as the Act does not place any restriction or limitation on the exercise of appellate power. Even otherwise an Appellate Authority while hearing appeal against the order of a subordinate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations if any prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision the Appellate Authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There appears to be no good reason and none was placed before us to justify curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Officer." [emphasis supplied] (B) It is clear, therefore, that an assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the appellate authorities, but is also entitled to raise additional claims before them. The appellate authorities have the discretion whether or not to permit such ITXA3908 additional claims to be raised. It cannot, however, be said that they have no jurisdiction to consider the same. They have the jurisdiction to entertain the new claim. That they may choose not to exercise their jurisdiction in a given case is another matter. The exercise of discretion is entirely different from the existence of jurisdiction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 2 April, 2002

As canvassed by the Id. AR, we note that the principle of ejusdem generis focuses on interpreting a general term in a list based on specific accompanying terms, taking support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Prasad (supra), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) and Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra), in our opinion, the words "by whatever name called" do not expand the scope of the word "assistance", but, only expands the scope of the words "subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement". We thus, hold that the word "assistance" is independent of the words "by whatever name called" and words "by whatever name called" are not qualifying the word "assistance". By applying the samefinding, let us see the difference between the words "reward" and "assistance". As per the note given by the ld. AR, the term "reward" is defined as a "thing given in recognition of service, efforts or achievement", whereas, the term "assistance" is defined as the provision of money, resources or information to help someone, thus, we find a "reward" is granted in a recognition of services, an assistance is given to someone as a help, but not in recognition of a service rendered. Therefore, in our opinion, there is a clear difference between the words "reward" and "assistance", thus, we hold the "reward" as in the Foreign Trade Policy 2015 and the "assistance" as found in the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act are different from each other, the "reward" does not fall within the definition of sub-clause (xviii) of sub-section (24) of section 2 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

M/S. Grasim Industries Limited vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 4 April, 2002

As canvassed by the Id. AR, we note that the principle of ejusdem generis focuses on interpreting a general term in a list based on specific accompanying terms, taking support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Prasad (supra), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) and Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra), in our opinion, the words "by whatever name called" do not expand the scope of the word "assistance", but, only expands the scope of the words "subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement". We thus, hold that the word "assistance" is independent of the words "by whatever name called" and words "by whatever name called" are not qualifying the word "assistance". By applying the samefinding, let us see the difference between the words "reward" and "assistance". As per the note given by the ld. AR, the term "reward" is defined as a "thing given in recognition of service, efforts or achievement", whereas, the term "assistance" is defined as the provision of money, resources or information to help someone, thus, we find a "reward" is granted in a recognition of services, an assistance is given to someone as a help, but not in recognition of a service rendered. Therefore, in our opinion, there is a clear difference between the words "reward" and "assistance", thus, we hold the "reward" as in the Foreign Trade Policy 2015 and the "assistance" as found in the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act are different from each other, the "reward" does not fall within the definition of sub-clause (xviii) of sub-section (24) of section 2 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 174 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

In order to come to such conclusion, the Amritsar Bench of ITAT placed reliance in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dilip Kumar & Company [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327 (SC)/AIR 2018 Supreme Court 3606, which laid down principle applicable for interpretation of taxing statute, that in interpreting taxing statute equitable consideration are entirely out of place, a taxing statute cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted what is clearly expressed, it cannot employ anything which is not expressed, it cannot importprovision to statute so as to supply any do of the Act and in the absence of inclusion of it be shown that he provision, tothe ambit of section 2(24)(xii) of the include exemption by interpreting with words under the said falls within tope of section cannot be enlargede facts before ITAT Amritsar Benue with its subsidy. We find the facts of the present case are identical to the dion 2(24)(xvi) of these Benches. In the present case, the thefacreward" is absent in the provisions of section 2(24) of the Act, in the absence of said word in section 2(24)(xvii) of the Act, the scope of the section cannot be enlarged to include "reward".
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 2183 - N V Ramana - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next