CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd.

304 ITR 308Supreme Court of India2008#387 most cited

What is CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

A clarificatory or declaratory amendment to a statutory provision has retrospective effect from the date the original provision came into force, as its purpose is to clarify existing law rather than introduce new law.

229

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. · 304 ITR 308 · Supreme Court · clarificatory amendment retrospective · declaratory statute · retrospective application · statutory interpretation · section 140A · section 115JB · effective date of amendment · tax law amendments

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 271(1)(c)Section 14ASection 10(23G)Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 215section 207section 2(43)section 262section 209section 2(1)section 208section 210section 115jaasection 140aclarificatory amendment

Judgments citing CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd.

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

…n 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. According to him, MAT credit available under section 115JA…

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

ITA 5690/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

…fect. This is not even disputed by the Revenue before us as the issue of the nature of such declaratory statutes stands considered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. 367 ITR 466 and CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Foods (P) Ltd. 304 ITR 308. (r) In the above facts and circumstances, question (iii)(a) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee. Question (iii)(b) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee. Tata Consultancy Service Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 5713/Mum/2016 (AY 2009-10) and…

ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly,\nGround No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore\nstands dismissed

ITA 4109/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…t. This is not even disputed by\nthe Revenue before us as the issue of the nature of such declaratory statutes stands\nconsidered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. 367\nITR 466 and CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Foods (P) Ltd. 304 ITR 308.\n\n(r) In the above facts and circumstances, question (iii)(a) is answered in the negative i.e.\nagainst the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee. Question (iii)(b) is answered\nin the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee.\n\nTata Consultancy Service Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.\n5713/Mum/2016 (AY 2009…

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…9 ITR 236 (SC). We have given our careful consideration to the matter. We find the assessee's case is wholly unmaintainable in view of the law as explained by the hon'ble apex court over a series of decisions, viz.CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC); CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 156 ITR 323 (SC) and CIT (Central) v. Harprasad and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC), to cite some. We begin by reproducing/enlisting the observations by the apex court from the said decisions. In CIT (Central) v. Harprasad and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC), also relied upon by the Assessing Officer, whic…

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 243/LKW/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…. Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), the judgment in Keshavlal Jethalal Shah vs Mohanlal Bhagwandas & Anr (1968) 3 SCR 623 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT-1, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 622. He also quoted from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1 and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy (1999) 240 ITR 341 (SC), M/s L.R. Brothers, Indo Flora Limited vs. Commissioner, Central Excise in Civil Appeal No. 7157 of 200…

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 242/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…. Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), the judgment in Keshavlal Jethalal Shah vs Mohanlal Bhagwandas & Anr (1968) 3 SCR 623 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT-1, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 622. He also quoted from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1 and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy (1999) 240 ITR 341 (SC), M/s L.R. Brothers, Indo Flora Limited vs. Commissioner, Central Excise in Civil Appeal No. 7157 of 200…

DCIT-5(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2987/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was\na clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and\nCIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State\nof Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was\nretrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation\nclaimed on spectrum and amortizing the same.\n77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n78. It is observed that the Tribu…

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2150/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was\na clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and\nCIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State\nof Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was\nretrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation\nclaimed on spectrum and amortizing the same.\n\n77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n\n78. It is observed that the T…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2179/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was\na clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and\nCIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State\nof Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was\nretrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation\nclaimed on spectrum and amortizing the same.\n77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n78. It is observed that the Tribu…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2178/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was\na clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and\nCIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State\nof Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was\nretrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation\nclaimed on spectrum and amortizing the same.\n77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n78. It is observed that the Tribu…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1777/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was\na clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and\nCIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State\nof Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was\nretrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation\nclaimed on spectrum and amortizing the same.\n77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n78. It is observed that the Tribu…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1775/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was\na clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and\nCIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State\nof Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was\nretrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation\nclaimed on spectrum and amortizing the same.\n77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n78. It is observed that the Tribu…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5945/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was\na clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and\nCIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State\nof Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was\nretrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation\nclaimed on spectrum and amortizing the same.\n77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n78. It is observed that the Tribu…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT HQ (JUDL.) TO CIT-14, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5765/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was\na clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and\nCIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State\nof Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was\nretrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation\nclaimed on spectrum and amortizing the same.\n\n77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n\n78. It is observed that the T…

TATYASAHEB NARAYAN LAGAD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(2), PUNE

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

ITA 1587/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad Ito, Ward 6(2), Pune B-504, Crossover Country, Sinhagad Vs. Road, Wadgaon Khurd, Pune – 411041 Pan: Acypl2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe
Section 143(2)Section 69A

…e applied retrospectively for the transactions prior to 15.12.2016: a. CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) b. CIT vs. K. Raheja Hotels & Estate (P.) Ltd. (2014) 51 taxmann.com 258 (SC) 8 c. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC) d. Govinddas vs. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC) e. CIT vs. Sandesh Kumar Jain vide ITA No.41/JAB/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 order dated 31.10.2022. 11. He also relied on the following decisions: a. CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Del) b. DCIT Vs. Smt. Veena Awasthi vide ITA No. 215/LKW/2016, order dated 30.11.2018 c. Neeta Breja Vs ITO vide I…

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

ITA 454/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…cable to such legislations as are explanatory and declaratory in nature." - Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC 1. Further, the reference is also drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Decision in the case of CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd. (2018) 9 SCC 622 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the intention of the amendment is curative or merely declaratory, it will have retrospective application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gold Coin Health Food Pvt.Ltd (2018) 9 SCC 622 has held that if the intention of the amendment is curative or merely declaratory, it will have retrospective ap…

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…to such legislations as are explanatory and declaratory in nature.\" - Zile\nSingh vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC 1.\n\nFurther, the reference is also drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Decision\nin the case of CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd. (2018) 9 SCC 622 wherein\nHon'ble Apex Court has held that if the intention of the amendment is curative or\n\nmerely declaratory, it will have retrospective application. The Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of Gold Coin Health Food Pvt.Ltd (2018) 9 SCC 622 has held\nthat if the intention of the amendment is curative or merely declaratory, it will have\nretrospec…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. WELSPUN STEEL LIMITED, GUJARAT

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3862/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay NagpalFor Respondent: Dr.Kishor Dhule
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Room No.1923, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021, Maharashtra. …………. Appellant Welspun Steel Limited Vs Survey No.650&652, Village Versamedi, Distt – Kutch Anjar, Gujarat [PAN:AAACW6515B] …………. Respondent Appearance For the Respondent/Department : Dr.Kishor Dhule For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Ajay Nagpal Date Conclusion of hearing : 24.12.2024 Pronouncement of order : 31.12.2024 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Ch…

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1538/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

…t in case of CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC)  Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. K. Raheja Hotels & Estate (P.) Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 258 (SC)  Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC)  Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 (SC)  Hon'able Jabalpur Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sandesh kumar jain” Submission of DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) relied on the order of the Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A). Ld.DR submitted that AO had rightly invoked provision…

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 3498/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 43B

…ular income. Such computation of statutory income is made only for comparison of tax on such income with tax on book profits. In coming to the conclusion, the High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308, which was relied upon by the Revenue, pointing out that it was a case of over-statement of loss specifically deemed as concealment under Explanation 4 to section 271(l)(c) and found that this decision had no application to the assessee's facts. The Hon'ble high Court while deciding the case had observed as under: "The question, however, in the p…

Showing 1–20 of 229 · Page 1 of 12

...
CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. (304 ITR 308) — Cited in 229 Judgments | BharatTax