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 366,416 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)
Read the full judgment

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. Viroka Technology Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 507/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Chetan R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the payments are made prior to the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Further, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the ITAT’s Order in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/…

M/S. Shalimar Agarbatti Company, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 485/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 43B

…o Section 271(1)(iii) of the Act by incorporating the expression "if any" and also in Explanation 4 setting out the meaning of the phrase "amount of tax sought to be evaded". The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food [P] Ltd., [2008] 304 ITR 308 [SC], held that the Parliament clarified the position by using the expression "if any", which was not a substantive amendment creating penalty for the first time. It was held that income always included loss and even the unamended provisions would have to be interpreted in the manner that right from 01.06.1976 penalty would have been leviable. He…

M/S. Shalimar Agarbatti Company, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 484/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 43B

…o Section 271(1)(iii) of the Act by incorporating the expression "if any" and also in Explanation 4 setting out the meaning of the phrase "amount of tax sought to be evaded". The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food [P] Ltd., [2008] 304 ITR 308 [SC], held that the Parliament clarified the position by using the expression "if any", which was not a substantive amendment creating penalty for the first time. It was held that income always included loss and even the unamended provisions would have to be interpreted in the manner that right from 01.06.1976 penalty would have been leviable. He…

Kishan Dutt Sharma, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 436/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, held that the amendment is clarifactory in nature and has got retrospective operation. The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC). 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT 4 Shri Kishan Dutt Sharma. in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated 21.10.2021). It was further submitted that the case law relied on by the learned CIT(A) is distinguis…

M/S. Sumathi Nursing & Maternity Home, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore

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

ITA 434/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Pranav KrishnaFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 43B

…36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, held that the amendment is clarifactory in nature and has got retrospective operation. The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC). 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated 21.10.2021). It was 4 M/s.Sumathi Nursing & Maternity Home. further submitted that the case law relied on by the learned CIT(A) i…

M/S. Synergics, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 506/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated 21.10.2021). 6. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC) and submitted that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that as against the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 370 (…

M/S Synergics, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 505/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated 21.10.2021). 6. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC) and submitted that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that as against the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 370 (…

M/S. Anusha Techno Ventures, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated 21.10.2021). 7. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC) and submitted that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that as against the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 370 (…

M/S. P.R. Forgings Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 421/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act is clarifactory and has got retrospective operation. In this context, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC). As regards the disallowance of Rs.9,915, the learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the orders passed by the Income Tax Authorities. 6.1 In the rejoinder, the learned AR submitted that the case law relied on by the learned Standing Counsel, namely, CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (supra) is distinguishable on facts. It was su…

M/S. Environs Management (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 420/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated 21.10.2021). 6. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC) and submitted that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that as against the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 370 (…

M/S. Infobells Inferactive Solutions, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 411/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Infobells Interactive Solutions, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.12, 2Nd Floor, 8Th V Block, Circle – 4(3)(1), K R Nanjappa Layout, Vs. Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aacfi 7614 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 43B

…o Section 271(1)(iii) of the Act by incorporating the expression "if any" and also in Explanation 4 setting out the meaning of the phrase "amount of tax sought to be evaded". The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food [P] Ltd., [2008] 304 ITR 308 [SC], held that the Parliament clarified the position by using the expression "if any", which was not a substantive amendment creating penalty for the first time. It was held that income always included loss and even the unamended provisions would have to be interpreted in the manner that right from 01.06.1976 penalty would have been leviable. He…

DCIT - 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6426/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6425/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6426/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 1140/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Maharashtra Tourism Tax, Circle 1(2)(2), Development Corporation Room No. 535, 5 Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. फनाभ/ Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 C.D.O. Hutments, Opp. Lic 020 Bldg, Mada Cama Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacm0712G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Mamta Bansal, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Anil Sathe, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-8, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; Ay 10-11 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-365 & 366/15-16, Cit(A)- 2/It/10479/2016-17 Vide Dated 07.08.2017, 17.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 01.03.2013, 27.03.2015, 28.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Mamta Bansal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sathe, AR
Section 143(3)

…is that these provisions have Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; AY 10-11 been in the Act from the very inception, once it is clarificatory for this, she relied on CIT v. Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC). 18. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2021) 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyderabad – Trib.) dated 15.06.2021, wherein it is held that the provident fund contribution received from employees deposited by assessee before th…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 102/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Smt.C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…2009] 315 ITR 460 (SC)/(2009) 222 CTR 213) where Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for wrong adjustment of Unabsorbed Depreciation. A.Y. 2012-13 Page 8 of 18 5. CIT Vs Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/[2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC)/[2008] 218 CTR 359)where Hon'ble Delhi Supreme Court held that amendment made in Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and, therefore, will have retrospective effect 6. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1]Where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that U…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 869/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 90Section 90nSection 91

…before us as the issue of the nature of such declaratory statutes stands considered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466/227 Taxman 121/49 taxmann.com 249 and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Foods (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308/172 Taxman 386 (SC). (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. 77. Learned Departmental Representative, however, invites ou…

Sampark Hotels (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1438/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…efore, while the reasoning and approach of the Tribunal is not tenable, for the reasons disclosed above, penalty could not have been imposed even in respect of the false claim of depreciation made by the assessee. Cl T v. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC) ; [2008] 218 CTR (SC) 359 ; [2008] 11 DTR (SC) 185 distinguished." 15. On the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the issue involved is squarely covered by Division Bench Decision of this court in the case of Aleo Manali Hydro Power (P) Ltd. (supra). 16. The book profit disclosed by the assessee for the purpose of the liability o…

Shri. Jagannath S Shetty vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed

ITA/771/2018HC Karnataka12 Feb 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

Section 100

…his vendor; all he does is to pass on his title to the plaintiff. 32. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in NADIMINTI SURYANARAYAN MURTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VS. KOTHURTHI KRISHNA BHASKARA RAO AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 9 SCC 622 and brought to notice of this Court Para Nos.22 and 23, wherein the Apex Court has discussed with regard to sale consideration and payment and in Para No.29, discussed with regard to execution of the sale deed and observed that whatever amount which Defendants 1-5 received from Defendant 6, the same has to be refunded by Defendants 1-5 to Def…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3389/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(TP)A No. 3262/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Addl.CIT LTU – 1, 9th Floor, Nirmal Building, Vs. World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, 29th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400005. PAN No. AAACR 4849 R Appellant Respondent IT(TP)A No. 3389/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ACIT LTU – 1, World Trade Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Centre, Centre-1, 29th Floor, Vs. 9th Floor, Nirmal Building, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – Narima…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3262/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(TP)A No. 3262/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Addl.CIT LTU – 1, 9th Floor, Nirmal Building, Vs. World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, 29th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400005. PAN No. AAACR 4849 R Appellant Respondent IT(TP)A No. 3389/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ACIT LTU – 1, World Trade Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Centre, Centre-1, 29th Floor, Vs. 9th Floor, Nirmal Building, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – Narima…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. L.T. Foods Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4046/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…ndue hardship caused to assessee on disallowance of entire amount of expenditure, such amended provision has to be read with retrospective effect. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT VS.Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd 304 ITR 308 to the effect that the presumption against the retrospective operation is not applicable to the declaratory statutes and in determining the nature of the Act, record must be had to the substance rather than the form. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below on this issue. 88. We have gone through the record, in the light of the subm…

M/S L.T. Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4164/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…ndue hardship caused to assessee on disallowance of entire amount of expenditure, such amended provision has to be read with retrospective effect. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT VS.Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd 304 ITR 308 to the effect that the presumption against the retrospective operation is not applicable to the declaratory statutes and in determining the nature of the Act, record must be had to the substance rather than the form. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below on this issue. 88. We have gone through the record, in the light of the subm…