1 ITR 48(SC); Commissioner of Page 25 JUDGMENT 25 Wealth Tax, Meerut v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 14Th August, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avra Majumder, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmick, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated February 23, 2023, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `B’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No.2611/Kol/2019 And

…y, having regard to the scheme of assessment as provided for under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 6 1961. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Meerut vs. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons, (1994) 6 SCC 623. In the said case, the question was whether the Rule 1-BB of the Wealth Tax Rule 1957 is a provision which affects or alter the substantive rights or is merely a procedural. While considering the said issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the distinction between the statutes affecting rights and those affecting mere procedure. The revenue cannot r…

Income Tax Officer vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 29096 OF 2019) Income Tax Officer …Appellant(s) Versus Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia …Respondent(s) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 912 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 29109 OF 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 913 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 29115 OF 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 914 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 29116 OF 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 915 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 29118 OF 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 916 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 29119 OF 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2022 Page 1 of 67 Digitally signed by N…

Geetha Pandit Rao and Anr vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…gned notices under the guise of new amendment, is bad in law. 10. Learned Senior Counsel, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND OTHERS v. C.R. RANGADHAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in (1997)6 SCC 623 and by referring to paragraph 24 of the judgment, contended that if the intention of legislature is to give effect to the impugned amendment retrospectively, then the same would invade "vested rights" or "accrued rights" of the petitioners and therefore, he contended that the impugned amendment is not applicable to serving Adhyaksha/Upadhyaks…

Smt Geetha Pandit Rao vs. The Government of Karnataka

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…gned notices under the guise of new amendment, is bad in law. 10. Learned Senior Counsel, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND OTHERS v. C.R. RANGADHAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in (1997)6 SCC 623 and by referring to paragraph 24 of the judgment, contended that if the intention of legislature is to give effect to the impugned amendment retrospectively, then the same would invade "vested rights" or "accrued rights" of the petitioners and therefore, he contended that the impugned amendment is not applicable to serving Adhyaksha/Upadhyaks…

Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai vs. M/S. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through Its Manager

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2165 OF 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER … RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A.No.1429 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 36560 of 2012, C.A. No. 117 of 2015, C.A. No. 5101 of 2012, C.A. No. 118 of 2015, C.A. No. 6727 of 2015, C.A. No. 119 of 2015, C.A. No. 116 of 2015, C.A. No. 194 of 2015, C.A. No. 114 of 2015, C.A. No. 120 of 2015, C.A. No. 7395 of 2012, C.A. No. 7394 of 2012, C.A. No. 121 of 2015,…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana

…d Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay [1955] 27 ITR 20(SC), and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab [1963] 1 ITR 48(SC); Commissioner of Page 25 JUDGMENT 25 Wealth Tax, Meerut v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons, (1994) 6 SCC 623; CIT v. National Taj Traders, (1980) 1 SCC 370; Associated Cement Company Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kota and Ors., (48) STC 466). Francis Bennion in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Ed., Lexis Nexis in support of the aforesaid proposition put forth as an illustration that since charge made by the legislator in…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana

…d Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay [1955] 27 ITR 20(SC), and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab [1963] 1 ITR 48(SC); Commissioner of Page 25 JUDGMENT 25 Wealth Tax, Meerut v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons, (1994) 6 SCC 623; CIT v. National Taj Traders, (1980) 1 SCC 370; Associated Cement Company Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kota and Ors., (48) STC 466). Francis Bennion in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Ed., Lexis Nexis in support of the aforesaid proposition put forth as an illustration that since charge made by the legislator in…