1. S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co.

53 ITR 231Supreme Court of India1964#621 most cited

What is 1. S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co. authority for?

Income-tax assessment proceedings are administrative in nature, not civil disputes or judicial proceedings between contesting parties. Income-tax authorities act as administrative bodies to estimate income and assess tax, and the proper service of notice within the limitation period is foundational for reassessment jurisdiction.

158

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2026.

Also referred to as

S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co. · income tax assessment · administrative proceedings · not civil dispute · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 149 · service of notice · limitation period · reassessment jurisdiction

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 142(1)Section 149Section 143(2)Section 150

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158basection 150(1)section 150section 150(2)unexplained jewellerysection 18section 70section 33(4)

Judgments citing 1. S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co.

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…expenditure stands incurred by the AOP. Be that as it may be, the assessment proceedings under a taxing (fiscal) statute are, strictly speaking, not judicial proceedings; are not adversarial in nature or in the nature of a lis (S.S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co. [1964] 53 ITR 231 (SC); Deepak Agro Foods v. State of Rajasthan, in CA Nos. 4327-29 of 2008, dated 11/7/2008; CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad)). Further, the power of the tribunal is not confined to the grounds raised in appeal before it (Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963), even as rules 11 and 27 of the sa…

R.Smitha Sharma Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatanam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 74/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee by Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {PAN :AEMPP5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/A…

R.Mani Kumar Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 73/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee by Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {PAN :AEMPP5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/A…

Lalitha D.V.Rao Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 72/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee by Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {PAN :AEMPP5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/A…

V.Ujavala Rao Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 71/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee by Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {PAN :AEMPP5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/A…

V.Gautam Rao Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhpatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 70/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee by Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {PAN :AEMPP5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/A…

V.Pratima Rao, Represented by Dr. P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 69/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee by Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {PAN :AEMPP5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/A…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Sudev Industries Ltd

ITA/805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundations of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in J.P. Janni, ITO v. Induprasad D. Bhatt [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 72 ITR 595] as also in CIT v. Robert J. Sas [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 48 ITR 177] . The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of Banarsi Debi v. ITO [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 53 ITR 100] in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quit…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sudev Industries Limited

ITA-805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundations of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in J.P. Janni, ITO v. Induprasad D. Bhatt [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 72 ITR 595] as also in CIT v. Robert J. Sas [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 48 ITR 177] . The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of Banarsi Debi v. ITO [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 53 ITR 100] in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quit…

M/S Atria Power Corproation Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1394/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.L. Sowmya Achar, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 211Section 234Section 80I

…tika Township Private Limited: [TS-573-SC-2014-O]. To the same effect are the following decisions wherein it has been held that a provision imposing liability is governed by the normal presumption that is not retrospective: - S.S.Gadgil vs. Lal and Co. (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC) - K.M.Sharma vs. ITO [TS-5013-SC-2002-O] - Gem Granites vs. CIT [TS-5022-SC-2004-O] - Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. vs. CIT (2005) [TS-14-SC- 2005-O]. 22.28 The fundamental principle reiterated in the aforesaid decision is lexprospicit non respicit: i.e., laws look forward and not backward. No section can be interpreted retrospectively…

Ramesh Salecha HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3312/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 690

…e Income-tax Officer to reopen an assessment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, be…

Sourav Alloys and Steel Pvt. Ltd., Angul vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asit Kumar Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 12Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158

…e Income-tax Officer to reopen an assessment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment 19 is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections,…

Renuka G., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 292B

…ficer to reopen an assessment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. Page 11 of 13 The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, be…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…Vatika Township Private Limited: 367 ITR 466 (SC). To the same effect are the following decisions wherein it has been held that a provision imposing liability is governed by the normal presumption that is not retrospective: - S.S.Gadgil vs. Lal and Co. (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC) - K.M.Sharma vs. ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) - Gem Granites vs. CIT (2004) 271 ITR 322 (SC) - Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 310 (SC). 22.28 The fundamental principle reiterated in the aforesaid decision is lexprospicit non respicit: i.e., laws look forward and not backward. No section can be interpreted retrospe…

Infrastructue Development Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1197/CHNY/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1197/Mds/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-2008)

For Appellant: Shri. Farrokh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ind. The assessee relied on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd in ITA No.168/2011 and G.A. No1541/2012 vide order dated 15.5.2014. He further relied on the judgment of I.T.O vs. Lall & Co., reported in 53 ITR 231(S.C), wherein it was held as under:- “ A proceeding for assessment is not a suit for adjudication of a civil dispute. That an income tax proceeding is in the nature of a judicial proceeding between contesting parties, is a matter which is not capable of even a plausible argument. The Income Tax authorities who have power to assess and recover tax…

M/S.Virtual Soft Systems Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned. It is settled law that a taxing provision imposing liability is governed by the normal presumption that is not retrospective. Reference made to the decisions in: - i. S.S. Gadgil, ITO, Bombay v. Lal & Co., 53 ITR 231 (SC), ii. K.M. Sharma v. ITO, 254 ITR 772 (SC), iii. Gem Granites v. CIT , 271 ITR 322 (SC), iv. Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. & Ors. v. CIT, 279 ITR 310 (SC). There is nothing in the language of Section 271(1)(c) as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 to suggest that the amendment is retrospective. The amend…

M/S.Virtual Soft Systems Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned. It is settled law that a taxing provision imposing liability is governed by the normal presumption that is not retrospective. Reference made to the decisions in: - i. S.S. Gadgil, ITO, Bombay v. Lal & Co., 53 ITR 231 (SC), ii. K.M. Sharma v. ITO, 254 ITR 772 (SC), iii. Gem Granites v. CIT , 271 ITR 322 (SC), iv. Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. & Ors. v. CIT, 279 ITR 310 (SC). There is nothing in the language of Section 271(1)(c) as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 to suggest that the amendment is retrospective. The amend…

K.M. Sharma vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(7), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-007742-007742 - 1997Supreme Court11 Apr 2002
For Respondent: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(7)NEW DELHI
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150Section 150(1)Section 18Section 6

…e authorities to reopen assessments, which have become final and reassessment of which had become barred by time before 1.4.1989 when Section 150(1) was amended. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in S.S.Gadgil v. Lal and Co. reported in [1964] 53 ITR 231. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department has made an effort to persuade this Court to accept his construction of the provisions of Section 150(1) and (2) of the Act. It is argued that it is for the specific purpose of assessing income, which might accrue on the basis of any decision of any Court in any proceeding in any…