(2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. M B Power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

…internal diary and its shall not be admitted in the courts as evidence as reiterated in Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Relevant para is as under:  Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Narendra Jayantilal Modi Vs. Vadilal Bapalal Modi & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 630, the account books were held to be not reliable where other important documentary evidence supporting account books was not produced. Relevant para is reproduced hereinunder: “13. The account books were produced by Defendant 1 with a list of documents, Ext. 123. Defendant 1, however, did not lead any evidence with respect to the same when his turn…

Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

…internal diary and its shall not be admitted in the courts as evidence as reiterated in Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Relevant para is as under:  Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Narendra Jayantilal Modi Vs. Vadilal Bapalal Modi & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 630, the account books were held to be not reliable where other important documentary evidence supporting account books was not produced. Relevant para is reproduced hereinunder: “13. The account books were produced by Defendant 1 with a list of documents, Ext. 123. Defendant 1, however, did not lead any evidence with respect to the same when his turn…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

…internal diary and its shall not be admitted in the courts as evidence as reiterated in Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Relevant para is as under:  Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Narendra Jayantilal Modi Vs. Vadilal Bapalal Modi & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 630, the account books were held to be not reliable where other important documentary evidence supporting account books was not produced. Relevant para is reproduced hereinunder: “13. The account books were produced by Defendant 1 with a list of documents, Ext. 123. Defendant 1, however, did not lead any evidence with respect to the same when his turn…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. M. B. Power (Madhaya Pradesh) Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

…internal diary and its shall not be admitted in the courts as evidence as reiterated in Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Relevant para is as under:  Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Narendra Jayantilal Modi Vs. Vadilal Bapalal Modi & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 630, the account books were held to be not reliable where other important documentary evidence supporting account books was not produced. Relevant para is reproduced hereinunder: “13. The account books were produced by Defendant 1 with a list of documents, Ext. 123. Defendant 1, however, did not lead any evidence with respect to the same when his turn…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 20, Delhi vs. M.B. Power (Madhaya Pradesh) Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

…internal diary and its shall not be admitted in the courts as evidence as reiterated in Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Relevant para is as under:  Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Narendra Jayantilal Modi Vs. Vadilal Bapalal Modi & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 630, the account books were held to be not reliable where other important documentary evidence supporting account books was not produced. Relevant para is reproduced hereinunder: “13. The account books were produced by Defendant 1 with a list of documents, Ext. 123. Defendant 1, however, did not lead any evidence with respect to the same when his turn…

Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, South East Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

…internal diary and its shall not be admitted in the courts as evidence as reiterated in Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Relevant para is as under:  Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Narendra Jayantilal Modi Vs. Vadilal Bapalal Modi & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 630, the account books were held to be not reliable where other important documentary evidence supporting account books was not produced. Relevant para is reproduced hereinunder: “13. The account books were produced by Defendant 1 with a list of documents, Ext. 123. Defendant 1, however, did not lead any evidence with respect to the same when his turn…

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

…internal diary and its shall not be admitted in the courts as evidence as reiterated in Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Relevant para is as under:  Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Narendra Jayantilal Modi Vs. Vadilal Bapalal Modi & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 630, the account books were held to be not reliable where other important documentary evidence supporting account books was not produced. Relevant para is reproduced hereinunder: “13. The account books were produced by Defendant 1 with a list of documents, Ext. 123. Defendant 1, however, did not lead any evidence with respect to the same when his turn…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…iabilities might arise. Such amendments though framed as clarificatory, are in fact transformative substantive amendments, and incapable of being given retrospective effect. In R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (1995) 213 ITR 340 (SC) ; (1995) 2 SCC 630, it was held that the use of the words "it is declared" is not conclusive that the Act is declaratory because it may be used to introduce new rules of law. If the amendment changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used is "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts". In determining, the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…iabilities might arise. Such amendments though framed as clarificatory, are in fact transformative substantive amendments, and incapable of being given retrospective effect. In R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (1995) 213 ITR 340 (SC) ; (1995) 2 SCC 630, it was held that the use of the words "it is declared" is not conclusive that the Act is declaratory because it may be used to introduce new rules of law. If the amendment changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used is "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts". In determining, the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…iabilities might arise. Such amendments though framed as clarificatory, are in fact transformative substantive amendments, and incapable of being given retrospective effect. In R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (1995) 213 ITR 340 (SC) ; (1995) 2 SCC 630, it was held that the use of the words "it is declared" is not conclusive that the Act is declaratory because it may be used to introduce new rules of law. If the amendment changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used is "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts". In determining, the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…iabilities might arise. Such amendments though framed as clarificatory, are in fact transformative substantive amendments, and incapable of being given retrospective effect. In R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (1995) 213 ITR 340 (SC) ; (1995) 2 SCC 630, it was held that the use of the words "it is declared" is not conclusive that the Act is declaratory because it may be used to introduce new rules of law. If the amendment changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used is "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts". In determining, the…

New Skies Satellites B. V, Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

…question was never meant to have the import given to it by the Court? The general position of the courts in this regard is where the purpose of a special interpretive statute is to correct a judicial interpretation of a prior law, which the legislature (1995) 2 SCC 630 (2008) 9 SCC 662 (1997) 5 SCC 482 ITA 473/2012, 474/2012, 500/2012 & 244/2014 Page 28 considers inaccurate, the effect is prospective. Any other result would make the 14 ITA No.436/Del./2022 legislature a court of last resort. United States v. Gilmore 8 Wall33, Peony Park v. O'Malley34. It does not mean that the legislature does not have the power…