Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.92 seconds)
The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. on 5 December, 2017
cites
Section 80IB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Bombay vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay ... on 24 April, 1992
“23. Mr Bharuka further submitted that in taxing
statutes, provision of concessional rate of tax should
be liberally construed and in respect of the above
submission, he cited the judgment of this Court in
CST v. Industrial Coal Enterprises [(1992) 3 SCC 78]
and in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT. We are
unable to countenance the above submission. In our
view, the provisions of exemption clause should be
strictly construed and if the condition under which the
exemption was granted stood changed on account of
any subsequent event the exemption would not
operate.
The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951
Section 33B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad vs Collector Of Central Excise And ... on 14 September, 1994
32)
“32. It may be true that the exemption
notification should receive a strict
construction as has been held by this
Court in Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE and
Customs[ 1994 (Supp) 3 SCC 606], but it
is also true that once it is found that the
industry is entitled to the benefit of
exemption notification, it would received
a broad construction.
Tisco Mazdoor Union vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 16 April, 2004
(See TISCO Ltd. v.
State of Jharkhand[(2005) 4 SCC 272]
and A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State
of Kerala[(2007) 2 SCC 725].) A
notification granting exemption can be
withdrawn in public interest. What would
be the public interest would, however,
depend upon the facts of each case.”
M/S. A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. .. ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors. .. Respondents on 14 December, 2006
(See TISCO Ltd. v.
State of Jharkhand[(2005) 4 SCC 272]
and A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State
of Kerala[(2007) 2 SCC 725].) A
notification granting exemption can be
withdrawn in public interest. What would
be the public interest would, however,
depend upon the facts of each case.”
Commnr. Of Customs, Mumbai vs M/S. M. Ambalal & Co on 9 December, 2010
“16. It is settled law that the notification has to be
read as a whole. If any of the conditions laid down in
the notification is not fulfilled, the party is not entitled
to the benefit of that notification. The rule regarding
exemptions is that exemptions should generally be
strictly interpreted but beneficial exemptions having
their purpose as encouragement or promotion of
certain activities should be liberally interpreted. This
composite rule is not stated in any particular
judgment in so many words. In fact, majority of
judgments emphasise that exemptions are to be
strictly interpreted while some of them insist that
exemptions in fiscal statutes are to be liberally
interpreted giving an apparent impression that they
are contradictory to each other. But this is only
apparent. A close scrutiny will reveal that there is no
real contradiction amongst the judgments at all. The
synthesis of the views is quite clearly that the general
rule is strict interpretation while special rule in the
case of beneficial and promotional exemption is
liberal interpretation. The two go very well with each
other because they relate to two different sets of
circumstances.”