Allied Motors v. CIT

297 ITR 322Supreme Court of India2008#1930 most cited

What is Allied Motors v. CIT authority for?

An amendment to a section is declaratory and clarifies the existing legal position, rather than introducing a new rule.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Allied Motors v. CIT · 297 ITR 322 · SC · declaratory amendment · clarification of law · Finance Act 2006 · advance tax · MAT credit

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 43CASection 50CSection 132Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

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 v. CIT

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/272/2008HC Telangana28 Nov 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

…after section 234B brought about by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 01.04.2007 is merely declaratory. He placed reliance on the said Circular No. 14/2006 dated 28.12.2006 and upon Allied Motors v. CIT: 224 ITR 677 (SC) and Suresh N. Gupta v. CIT: 297 ITR 322 (SC). Consequently, what was introduced by way of amendment was merely to clarify and declare in explicit terms what was always the position in law. 22. Lastly, it was submitted by Mr Aggarwal, in the context of applicability of section 154, that, in any event the issue was highly debatable. This was so because, according to him, the Tr…

Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai vs. Gaurav Investments, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant V/S Gaurav Investments, 1St Floor, B & C Block, Tradelink, E-Wing, ……………… Respondent Kamala Mill Compounds, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aadfg0064D

For Appellant: Shri Kshitiji Kasi ViswanathFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43C

…eld the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01-06-2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta [2008] 166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the S…

DCIT 42 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Mumbai

ITA 4421/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 250Section 43CSection 66Section 68Section 69C

…eld the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01-06-2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta [2008] 166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the S…

Sharath Kumar Reddy Sareddy, Wanaparthy, Mahabub Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1096/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1096/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Sharath Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Sareddy, Wanaparthy Ward – 1 Mahbubnagar Mahbubnagar Pan:Hpwps0712H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 194BSection 58(4)

…he tax chargeable under the section shall be increased by surcharge, if any. After insertion of this proviso, again a pandora box opened on the prospective or retrospective operation of this proviso. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Suresh N. Gupta (2008) 297 ITR 322 (SC) held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B from retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 310 ITR 105 (SC) by holding the proviso u/s.113 to be retrospective in nature. Once again, this Di…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shriprop Properties Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1283/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

…eld the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01-06-2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta [2008] 166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the S…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Spl Shelters Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1273/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

…eld the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01-06-2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta [2008] 166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the S…

Shriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1173/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

…eld the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01-06-2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta [2008] 166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the S…

Spl Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1172/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

…eld the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01-06-2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta [2008] 166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the S…

Meridian Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. A-DCIT, Circle- 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2220/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, CA
Section 148Section 43C

…d the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01 -06- 2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta [2008] 166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara [2009] 178 Тахтап 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the S…

Parul University, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Exemption Circle-1, Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 993/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…& 2017-18 25 essential ingredient of fraud and that heavy penalties can be imposed for fraudulent acts. In the present case, we have no hesitation to say that the intent was to defraud the object of the trust. 7.9. In case of CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta (2008) 297 ITR 322 (SC), the Supreme Court discussed the principles of amnesty schemes and held that such schemes aim to promote voluntary compliance and cannot be equated with fraudulent conduct. 7.10. Thus, in the present case, the stand of assessee that their participation in PMGKY is absolving them from defaults is not correct. 7.11. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to p…

Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 992/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…& 2017-18 25 essential ingredient of fraud and that heavy penalties can be imposed for fraudulent acts. In the present case, we have no hesitation to say that the intent was to defraud the object of the trust. 7.9. In case of CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta (2008) 297 ITR 322 (SC), the Supreme Court discussed the principles of amnesty schemes and held that such schemes aim to promote voluntary compliance and cannot be equated with fraudulent conduct. 7.10. Thus, in the present case, the stand of assessee that their participation in PMGKY is absolving them from defaults is not correct. 7.11. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to p…

Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 991/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…& 2017-18 25 essential ingredient of fraud and that heavy penalties can be imposed for fraudulent acts. In the present case, we have no hesitation to say that the intent was to defraud the object of the trust. 7.9. In case of CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta (2008) 297 ITR 322 (SC), the Supreme Court discussed the principles of amnesty schemes and held that such schemes aim to promote voluntary compliance and cannot be equated with fraudulent conduct. 7.10. Thus, in the present case, the stand of assessee that their participation in PMGKY is absolving them from defaults is not correct. 7.11. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to p…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashram Road vs. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust, Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1019/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…& 2017-18 25 essential ingredient of fraud and that heavy penalties can be imposed for fraudulent acts. In the present case, we have no hesitation to say that the intent was to defraud the object of the trust. 7.9. In case of CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta (2008) 297 ITR 322 (SC), the Supreme Court discussed the principles of amnesty schemes and held that such schemes aim to promote voluntary compliance and cannot be equated with fraudulent conduct. 7.10. Thus, in the present case, the stand of assessee that their participation in PMGKY is absolving them from defaults is not correct. 7.11. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to p…

DCIT, Central Circle1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust, Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1018/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…& 2017-18 25 essential ingredient of fraud and that heavy penalties can be imposed for fraudulent acts. In the present case, we have no hesitation to say that the intent was to defraud the object of the trust. 7.9. In case of CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta (2008) 297 ITR 322 (SC), the Supreme Court discussed the principles of amnesty schemes and held that such schemes aim to promote voluntary compliance and cannot be equated with fraudulent conduct. 7.10. Thus, in the present case, the stand of assessee that their participation in PMGKY is absolving them from defaults is not correct. 7.11. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to p…

Alrameez Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 482/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. 707/708, 7Th Floor, Jms Business Centre Behram Baug, Oshiwara Link Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai-400 080 Pan: Aafca8078A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 143Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 275Section 43C

…ld the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01 -06-2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta [2008] 166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara [2009] 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the S…

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

…d the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01 -06- 2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta [2008] 166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara [2009] 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the S…

Macrotech Developrs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

…d the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01 -06- 2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta [2008] 166 Taxman 313/297 ITR 322 also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara [2009] 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the S…

K.L. Swamy vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-003704-003704 - 2012Supreme Court13 Jan 2023

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

Section 113Section 132Section 140ASection 158BSection 234A

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3704 OF 2012 K.L. Swamy ...Appellant(s) Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. …Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3706 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3705 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3707 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3708 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3709 OF 2012 J U D G M E N T : 1 : Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.01.13 16:29:07 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, all these appeals are decided and dispos…

Sai Bhargavnath Infra, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1332/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C

…igh Court upheld the assessee‟s claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01-06- 2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Suresh N. Gupta (2008) 297 ITR 322 (SC) also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV–B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 310 ITR 105 (SC) by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supre…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri H E Panduranga

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/211/2013HC Karnataka08 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 158BSection 2Section 260Section 260A

…158BA which specifically provides that income arises under Chapter XIV-B shall not be included in the regular assessment of any previous year without appreciating the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh N.Gupta reported in 297 ITR 322 (166 Taxman 313) 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is the proprietor of M/s Rajarajeshwari Enterprises. On 27.03.2000, a search was conducted under Section 132 of the Act. In the course of the search, the Bank accounts of the assessee was examined and it was found that the assessee could not e…