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 366,339 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.

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…to assessee on disallowance of entire amount of expenditure. Accordingly, the same would, have retrospective operation. 64. He further referred to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Limited: 304 ITR 308, wherein Their Lordships, while analyzing the principles regarding retrospective operation of statutes categorically observed, ―The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes… In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form.‖ Reliance in this…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…to assessee on disallowance of entire amount of expenditure. Accordingly, the same would, have retrospective operation. 64. He further referred to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Limited: 304 ITR 308, wherein Their Lordships, while analyzing the principles regarding retrospective operation of statutes categorically observed, ―The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes… In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form.‖ Reliance in this…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…to assessee on disallowance of entire amount of expenditure. Accordingly, the same would, have retrospective operation. 64. He further referred to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Limited: 304 ITR 308, wherein Their Lordships, while analyzing the principles regarding retrospective operation of statutes categorically observed, ―The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes… In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form.‖ Reliance in this…

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143

…ature and, therefore, exempt under s. 10(3). Since the income is not taxable the loss incurred in such activity also could not be set off against income from other heads of income.’’ f) Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd ,304 ITR 308 (SC)(2008) 57 | P a g e In this case The Apex Court held that - Section 2(24) defines 'income' which is an inclusive definition and includes losses, i.e., negative profit. The position has been elaborately dealt with by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Harprasad & Co. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR118. The Court held with reference to the charging provisions of…

M/S Hcl Technologies Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT (TDS), Noida

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…orpn. v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 356 ITR 44/214 Taxman 373/29 taxmann.com 15 (Guj.), the Division Bench of this court in para 28 and 30 has observed and held as under :— "28. ... In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gold Coin Health Food P. Ltd. reported in 304 ITR 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under : In Zile Singh v. State of Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, it was observed as follows : "13. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. But the rule in general is a…

Netesoft India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -10(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 5359/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 70

…f of the same from gain arising on other capital assets. Further, Section 10(38) could not be read into Section 70 or 71 or Section 45 to 48. 2.4 However, placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Gold Coin Health Food P. Ltd. (2008 304 ITR 308); CIT V/s J.H.Gotla (156 ITR 323) and CIT V/s Harprasad & Co. (99 ITR 118), the said submissions were rejected since income would include losses also. Applying the aforesaid logic i.e. income would include losses, Ld. AO formed an opinion that loss would bear the same character and quality as does the positive income. Accordingly, if a particular…

Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 151/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

…age 16 to para 19 of the impugned order . Thereafter, the Ld. Pr. CIT treated the amendment in Explanation (1) section 10(10D) of the Act as curative and merely declaratory in nature, placing reliance on following judgment: 1. Gold Coin Health Food (P). Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) 2. Reliance Jute & Industries ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 931 (SC) 3. Poddar Cement P. Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 HarleenKaur Bhatia &GurvinderKaur Bhatia ITA Nos.150 & 151 /Ind/19 4. AnujJayendra Shah, vs. PCIT-35, Mumbai (67 Taxman.com 38) 23. Ld. Pr. CIT also discussed the legal position of power of Commission for revision u/s 263 of the Act referr…

Harleen Kaur Bhatia, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 150/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

…age 16 to para 19 of the impugned order . Thereafter, the Ld. Pr. CIT treated the amendment in Explanation (1) section 10(10D) of the Act as curative and merely declaratory in nature, placing reliance on following judgment: 1. Gold Coin Health Food (P). Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) 2. Reliance Jute & Industries ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 931 (SC) 3. Poddar Cement P. Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 HarleenKaur Bhatia &GurvinderKaur Bhatia ITA Nos.150 & 151 /Ind/19 4. AnujJayendra Shah, vs. PCIT-35, Mumbai (67 Taxman.com 38) 23. Ld. Pr. CIT also discussed the legal position of power of Commission for revision u/s 263 of the Act referr…

Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…Ltd. (184 Taxman 8 (SCVf.20091 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. 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 16 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad and, therefore, will have retrospective effect. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be levied in case of loss…

Ashtavinayak Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir. 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5367/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Ashtavinayaka Jcit Circle 22(3), Mumbai. Construction, Vs. Plot No. R-478, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Rabale, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Pan No. Aadfa1724G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.K. Mishra, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ncome. 4. CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. It is not relevant as the matter was set aside to the [2009] 315 ITR 460 (SC) Tribunal without giving any findings. 5. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food It deals with the levy of penalty in case of a loss by (P) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308 virtue of Explanation 4 which is not the case here. (SC) 6. MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT It merely provides that the AO is not required to 2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) record his satisfaction in a particular manner. It does not deal with non-striking off issue. 7. B. A. Balasubramaniam & It deals with the old Explanation providing for Bros. Co. vs. CIT 236…

Sony Dadc Manufacturing (India ) P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3648/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Communication (P) Ltd. (191 taxman 179 (Delhi)/(2010) 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/(2010) 233 CTR 465 4. CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. (184 Taxman 8 (SC)/ (2009) 315 ITR 460 (SC)/(2009) 222 CTR 213 5. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) LTd. (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/(2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC)/(2008) 218 CTR 359) 6. MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT (38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs. CIT (116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556) 8. CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co (91 ITR 467) 9. Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT (296 ITR 228) 10. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (183 Taxman 453 (Del…

Sonali D. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17 (3) Erstwhile Deputy Commissioner Income Tax 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6708/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Communication (P) Ltd. (191 taxman 179 (Delhi)/(2010) 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/(2010) 233 CTR 465 4. CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. (184 Taxman 8 (SC)/ (2009) 315 ITR 460 (SC)/(2009) 222 CTR 213 5. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) LTd. (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/(2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC)/(2008) 218 CTR 359) 6. MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT (38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs. CIT (116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556) 8. CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co (91 ITR 467) 9. Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT (296 ITR 228) 10. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (183 Taxman 453 (Del…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mukund Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6437/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalin The Matter Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Rd, ……………. Appellant New Marine Lines, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri. Kirit Kamtar & Parth Achwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari, Sr. AR CIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)

…at would have been made taking into account concealment made by assessee while making assessment under normal procedure. 5.1.3 While pronouncing the above verdict, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court distinguished the decision of CIT v Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd 304 ITR 308 (SC) as follows: The judgment in the case of Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. obviously, does not deal with such a situation. What was held by the Supreme Court in that case is that even if in the income-tax return filed by the assessee losses are shown, penalty can still be imposed in a case where on setting off the concealed income against any l…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sitashri Trading & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2011-12 ITO Sitashri Trading & Finance Pvt.Ltd. Ward-23(4), A-6, Room No. 246, Connaught Place C.R. Building New Delhi Vs. New Delhi – 110 002 PAN AABCS0182P (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR Assessee by : Shri Sanjiv Jain, CA Date of Hearing 09/07/2018 Date of 01/10/2018 pronouncement O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(OSD)(Appeals)-8, Delhi dated 27.2.2015 f…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Avtec Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2775/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anchal Khandelwal, Senior DR
Section 10ASection 80I

…274 (SC) and CBDT Circular No. 7/DV/2013 dated 16.07.2013. The ld. AR for the assessee further relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC) and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. – (2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC) to support his contention that the amendment relied upon by the Revenue is declaratory in nature. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the decision rendered by AO and contended that the decision relied upon by the ld. AR as to the declaratory in the nature is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Hon’ble Apex Co…

M/S. Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2257/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Acit, Circle- 5(2), Ltd., New Delhi. A- 156, Lower Ground Floor, Vs. New Friends Colony, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Himani Agrawal, CA
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors, 295 ITR 244. (ii) R. L. Traders vs. ITO, 2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT. (iii) CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd., 327 ITR 510. (iv) CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd., 315 ITR 460. (v) CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd., 304 ITR 308. (vi) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593. (vii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT, 236 ITR 977. (viii) CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co., 91 ITR 467. (ix) Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT, 296 ITR 228. (x) CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd., 328 ITR 44. (xi) CIT vs. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd., 313 ITR 397. (xii) K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99. (x…

ITO WD 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kesar Petroproducts Ltd, Ratnagiri

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 1169/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessed income is a loss. Even during the period between April 1, 1976, and April 1, 2003, the position was that the penalty was leviable even in a case where addition of concealed income reduces the returned loss. CIT ~vs-Gold Coin Health Food P. Lid. [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC) applied. " 13.1. In view of the above findings, penalty levied u/s 27I(l)(c) of the Act of the issue of commission payments to M/s Purvico, in respect of The A.Yrs 2002-03 and 2003-04 are hereby confirmed. 16. Detailed finding so recorded by lower authorities have not been controverted by learned AR by bringing any positive material on recor…

Sahiwal Investment & Trading Co., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4913/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblesahiwal Investment & Trading Vs Ito Co., Ward 22(2) 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacs0017J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 32Section 50

…i. UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 295 ITR 244 (SC) ii. R L Traders vs. ITO 2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT iii CIT vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. 315 ITR 460 (SC) v. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food P. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) vi. MAK Data P. Ltd. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC) vii. B. A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT 236 ITR 977 (SC) viii. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Del) 9 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on the records. Since the Additional Grounds are legal in nature and can be taken at any stage,…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 534/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore connection with the land. It is also settled position of law that any explanation which has clarificatory in nature having retrospective effect, for this preposition we rely on the following decisions:- 1 CIT Vs Gold Coins Foods 304 ITR 308[SC] (P )Limited 2 Allied Motors (P) Ltd etc Vs 224 ITR 0677 CIT [SC] Viva Highways Ltd. V AIR2017MP103 3.6] The assessee company act as a nodal agency of the State Government , there is no business activity of the assessee on its own, assessee does not hold any assets in its own name, all expenses were incurred by the Appellant whether capital…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 533/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore connection with the land. It is also settled position of law that any explanation which has clarificatory in nature having retrospective effect, for this preposition we rely on the following decisions:- 1 CIT Vs Gold Coins Foods 304 ITR 308[SC] (P )Limited 2 Allied Motors (P) Ltd etc Vs 224 ITR 0677 CIT [SC] Viva Highways Ltd. V AIR2017MP103 3.6] The assessee company act as a nodal agency of the State Government , there is no business activity of the assessee on its own, assessee does not hold any assets in its own name, all expenses were incurred by the Appellant whether capital…