Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

226 ITR 625Supreme Court of India1997#356 most cited

What is Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. authority for?

Amendments to tax laws that are explanatory, declaratory, curative, or clarificatory in nature are judicially construed as retrospective, especially if they are intended to remedy unintended consequences.

244

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Allied Motors v CIT · CIT v Podar Cement · retrospective amendment · curative amendment · declaratory amendment · explanatory amendment · unintended consequences · tax law · assessment year

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 143(1)Section 40A(7)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 215section 207section 2(43)section 262section 209section 2(1)section 208section 210section 115jaasection 140aminimum alternate tax

Judgments citing Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

C I T vs. M/S Bharat Hotel Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA/70/2000HC Delhi24 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…pply "as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. 18. In any event even for the period earlier than 1st April 1988, in view of the decision in Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Podar Cement Private Limited (1997) 226 ITR 625 and Mysore Minerals v CIT (supra) the legal position is no longer res integra. In ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 17 of 21 Podar Cement Private Limited the Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether the income derived by the assessee on the flat…

C I T vs. M/S Bharat Hotel Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA - 70 / 2000HC Delhi24 Jul 2015
Section 260A

…pply "as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. 18. In any event even for the period earlier than 1st April 1988, in view of the decision in Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Podar Cement Private Limited (1997) 226 ITR 625 and Mysore Minerals v CIT (supra) the legal position is no longer res integra. In 2015:DHC:5892-DB ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 17 of 21 Podar Cement Private Limited the Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether the income derived by the ass…

C I T vs. M/S Bharat Hotels

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA - 71 / 2000HC Delhi24 Jul 2015
Section 260A

…pply "as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. 18. In any event even for the period earlier than 1st April 1988, in view of the decision in Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Podar Cement Private Limited (1997) 226 ITR 625 and Mysore Minerals v CIT (supra) the legal position is no longer res integra. In 2015:DHC:5887-DB ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 17 of 21 Podar Cement Private Limited the Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether the income derived by the ass…

C.I.T vs. M/S Bharat Hotel Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA - 72 / 2000HC Delhi24 Jul 2015
Section 260A

…pply "as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. 18. In any event even for the period earlier than 1st April 1988, in view of the decision in Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Podar Cement Private Limited (1997) 226 ITR 625 and Mysore Minerals v CIT (supra) the legal position is no longer res integra. In 2015:DHC:5888-DB ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 17 of 21 Podar Cement Private Limited the Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether the income derived by the ass…

C.I.T vs. M/S Bharat Hotels

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA - 73 / 2000HC Delhi24 Jul 2015
Section 260A

…pply "as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. 18. In any event even for the period earlier than 1st April 1988, in view of the decision in Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Podar Cement Private Limited (1997) 226 ITR 625 and Mysore Minerals v CIT (supra) the legal position is no longer res integra. In 2015:DHC:5889-DB ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 17 of 21 Podar Cement Private Limited the Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether the income derived by the ass…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Prashanth Prakash, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 864/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shri Prashant Prakash, Income Tax, No.113, Lalbagh Road Cross, Circle 8(1), Krishnappa Layout, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. PAN : AHMPP 8079P APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO No.86/Bang/2015 [in ITA No.864/Bang/2014] Assessment year : 2009-10 Shri Prashant Prakash, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Bangalore – 560 027. Income Tax, PAN : AHMPP 8079P Circle 8(1), Bangalore. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT Revenue b…

M/S Silver Software Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12

ITA 1642/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…ollowing judicial pronouncements :- (i) Shambu Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 143(SC). (ii) Bhoopalam Commercial Complex & Industries (262 ITR 517) (Kar). (iii) CIT V Sarabhai Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 197 (Guj) (iv) CIT V Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC). 2.2 Aggrieved by the orders of assessment for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 dt.15.3.2013 and 5.3.2014 respectively, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT (Appeals) – III, Bangalore. The learned CIT (Appeals) vide orders dt.30.10.2014 dismissed the assessee's appeal on the ground that the asset owned by the assessee is being e…

Prashanth Prakash, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I, .T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 573/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2009-10 Shri Prashanth Prakash, Vs. The Additional Commissioner of No.113, Lalbagh Road Cross, Income Tax, Krishnappa Layout, Range 8, Bangalore – 560 027. Bangalore. PAN: AHMPP 8079P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.N. Khincha, C.A. Respondent by : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 05.03.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member This appeal by the assessee is against the order d…

Official Liquidator

OLR/6/2015HC Karnataka10 Feb 2015

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH

Section 27

…belonging to the assessee”’ in our opinion, is an aspect which has to be borne in mind.” 55. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsels for the Assessees in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and others [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) dealt with the concept of Section 22 under which Income from the House Date of Judgment 30-08-2018 W.T.A.No.1/2015 & Connected Matters The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru through LRs. and Another 96/113 Property is taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held th…

CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora

ITA - 1106 / 2011HC Delhi17 Sept 2011
Section 54F

…tion of the Revenue is accepted, it would be a derogatory step. 10. Even when we look into the matter from another angle, facts remain that the assessee is the actual and constructive owner of the house. In CIT Vs. Podar Cements (P) Ltd. & Ors., (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), the Supreme Court has also accepted the theory of constructive ownership. Moreover, Section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his na…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

The appeal is dismissed

ITTA/215/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 100Section 158(3)

…d, therefore, if the principal Act was existing law when the constitution came into force, the amending Act also will be part of the existing law.” [Emphasis by us] 8.3. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) noted that circumstances under which an amendment or modification was introduced and the consequences thereof would have to be borne in mind while deciding the issue as to whether the amendment was clarificatory or substantive in its nature and whether it would have retrospective effect or not.” 15. He has also referred to the ju…

CIT vs. Neminath Industries Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 42 / 2011HC Delhi17 Jan 2011
Section 24

…rom house property, the assessee has to be registered owner thereof. In our . . ITA No.42/2011 Page 1 of 2 opinion this view is not sustainable on the anvil of Apex Court decision delivered in the case of C.I.T. vs. Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. in 226 ITR 625. Further the contention that letting out of office space when not required can be the business income is not sustainable on the anvil of decision of the Hon?ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smarts (P) Ltd. vs. C.I.T. (2008) 166 Taxman 53 (Delhi). In this case it was held that ?where the assessee in occupation of rented…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-1 vs. Allied Strips Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/791/2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were introduced to mitigate the hardship caused and were in that sense curative and clarificatory. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd: 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food P Ltd: 304 ITR 308 (SC). 29. Mr Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the appeals, adopted the arguments of Mr Aggarwal and Mr Syali and made additional submissions. 30. Mr Vohra’s first submission is that MAT credit is equivalent to payment of tax in advance. A…

CIT vs. Negolice India Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/986/2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were introduced to mitigate the hardship caused and were in that sense curative and clarificatory. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd: 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food P Ltd: 304 ITR 308 (SC). 29. Mr Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the appeals, adopted the arguments of Mr Aggarwal and Mr Syali and made additional submissions. 30. Mr Vohra’s first submission is that MAT credit is equivalent to payment of tax in advance. A…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Ajanta Offset & Packaging Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/476/2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were introduced to mitigate the hardship caused and were in that sense curative and clarificatory. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd: 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food P Ltd: 304 ITR 308 (SC). 29. Mr Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the appeals, adopted the arguments of Mr Aggarwal and Mr Syali and made additional submissions. 30. Mr Vohra’s first submission is that MAT credit is equivalent to payment of tax in advance. A…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Surya Roshni Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/802/2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were introduced to mitigate the hardship caused and were in that sense curative and clarificatory. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd: 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food P Ltd: 304 ITR 308 (SC). 29. Mr Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the appeals, adopted the arguments of Mr Aggarwal and Mr Syali and made additional submissions. 30. Mr Vohra’s first submission is that MAT credit is equivalent to payment of tax in advance. A…

CIT vs. Ocl India Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1063/2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were introduced to mitigate the hardship caused and were in that sense curative and clarificatory. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd: 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food P Ltd: 304 ITR 308 (SC). 29. Mr Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the appeals, adopted the arguments of Mr Aggarwal and Mr Syali and made additional submissions. 30. Mr Vohra’s first submission is that MAT credit is equivalent to payment of tax in advance. A…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nehru Place Hotels Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/546/2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were introduced to mitigate the hardship caused and were in that sense curative and clarificatory. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd: 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food P Ltd: 304 ITR 308 (SC). 29. Mr Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the appeals, adopted the arguments of Mr Aggarwal and Mr Syali and made additional submissions. 30. Mr Vohra’s first submission is that MAT credit is equivalent to payment of tax in advance. A…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mitsubishi Corporation India P

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/969/2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were introduced to mitigate the hardship caused and were in that sense curative and clarificatory. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd: 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food P Ltd: 304 ITR 308 (SC). 29. Mr Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the appeals, adopted the arguments of Mr Aggarwal and Mr Syali and made additional submissions. 30. Mr Vohra’s first submission is that MAT credit is equivalent to payment of tax in advance. A…

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. M/S Nestle India Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1474/2006HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were introduced to mitigate the hardship caused and were in that sense curative and clarificatory. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd: 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food P Ltd: 304 ITR 308 (SC). 29. Mr Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the appeals, adopted the arguments of Mr Aggarwal and Mr Syali and made additional submissions. 30. Mr Vohra’s first submission is that MAT credit is equivalent to payment of tax in advance. A…