CIT v. Goslino Mario

241 ITR 312Supreme Court of India2000#880 most cited

What is CIT v. Goslino Mario authority for?

The law applicable for an assessment year is that in force during that year, and an Explanation introduced with effect from a particular date does not retrospectively affect earlier assessment years unless expressly provided.

119

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Goslino Mario · Section 9(1)(ii) Explanation · retrospective amendment · prospective application of law · law in force · relevant assessment year · vested rights · statutory interpretation tax · tax amendment applicability · 241 ITR 312

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 8DSection 143(3)Section 115JBSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 250Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(ii)section 17(2)(iiia)section 8d(2)(ii)section 8dsection 17(2)section 5(b)strategic investmentsection 115jb(2)section 9(1)section 194hsection 14a(2)scheme of arrangement

Judgments citing CIT v. Goslino Mario

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI 1 vs. M/S AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.

Appeal is dismissed being covered

ITA/511/2025HC Delhi10 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 14Section 14ASection 260A

…ases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand.” 11. The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] . These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:15.10.2025 12:58:54 Signature Not Verified ITA 511/2025 Page 8 of 12…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. AMBATTUR CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUVALLUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1663/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1663/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ambattur Clothing Private Limited, Income Tax, 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ambattur Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai. Ambattur, Thiruvallur 600 058. [Pan:Aaaca4127D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vinay Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 67 Days. The Appellant-Revenue Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Revenue Are Bonafide, Which 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Jain, CA
Section 14A

…the cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand." 11. The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] . These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not effect the earlier assessment years. 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 19…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. ACB (INDIA) POWER LTD.

ITA/331/2025HC Delhi22 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 14A

…tion applicable to the cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand.' The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [2000] 241 ITR 312 (SC) ; (2000) 10 SCC 165 at page 314. These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not affect earlier assessment years. In this state of the law, on February 27, 1999, the Finance Bill, 1999, substituted the Explanation to section 9(1)(ii)…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. ACB (INDIA) POWER LTD.

ITA - 331 / 2025HC Delhi22 Aug 2025
Section 14A

…tion applicable to the cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand.' The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [2000] 241 ITR 312 (SC) ; (2000) 10 SCC 165 at page 314. These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not affect earlier assessment years. In this state of the law, on February 27, 1999, the Finance Bill, 1999, substituted the Explanation to section 9(1)(ii)…

ZODIAC VENTURES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 11 (3) (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4135/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Tiwari, AR
Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 199Section 250

…tuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand. " 6 ITA 4135/Mum/2025 Zodiac Ventures Ltd. 11. The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] . These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not effect the earlier assessment years. 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 19…

INDUS VALLEY PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KABRA EXCELCIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE,

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

ITA 81/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…to the cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand.' The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : [2000] 241 ITR 312 (SC)] . These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not effect the earlier assessment years. ITA No.81/Bang/2025. Page 10 of 19 In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or wha…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2901/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2900 & 2901/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…it were assumed not to bind the respondents under section 119 of the Act, nevertheless affords a reasonable construction of it, and there is no reason why we should not adopt it. 17. As was affirmed by this Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] a cardinal principle of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. (See also Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139: 1980 SCC (Tax) 67].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of c…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2900/CHNY/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.V.Justin, CITFor Respondent: Mr. S.Muralidhar, FCA &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 263

…f it were assumed not to bind the respondents under section 119 of the Act, nevertheless affords a reasonable construction of it, and there is no reason why we should not adopt it. 17. As was affirmed by this Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] a cardinal principle of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. (See also Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 67].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MADURAI

Appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2884/CHNY/2024[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2883 & 2884/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Income Tax, 47, Psk Nagar, Corporate Circle, Rajapalayam 626 108. Madurai [Pan Aaacr 5284J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Muralidhar & Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.As. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S. Muralidhar and Shri JFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…he cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand. " 11. The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] . These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly years. 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Explanation). Section 5 of the Bill expressly stated that with effect from 1-4- 200…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, RAJAPALAYAM

Appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2883/CHNY/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2883 & 2884/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Income Tax, 47, Psk Nagar, Corporate Circle, Rajapalayam 626 108. Madurai [Pan Aaacr 5284J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Muralidhar & Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.As. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S. Muralidhar and Shri JFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…he cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand. " 11. The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] . These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly years. 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Explanation). Section 5 of the Bill expressly stated that with effect from 1-4- 200…

MUTHU THEVAR NAGARAJAN,DINDIGUL vs. ITO, WARD-1., DINDIGUL

Appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2083/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2883 & 2884/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Income Tax, 47, Psk Nagar, Corporate Circle, Rajapalayam 626 108. Madurai [Pan Aaacr 5284J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Muralidhar & Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.As. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S. Muralidhar and Shri JFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…he cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand. " 11. The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] . These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly years. 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Explanation). Section 5 of the Bill expressly stated that with effect from 1-4- 200…

M/S JSW INFRASTRUTURE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6015/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Jsw Infrastructure Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(2)(1), Jsw Centre Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Bandra (East), Vs. Road, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcj 6721 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: 02/01/2025
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…o reason why we should not adopt it. 17. As was affirmed by this Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : 17. As was affirmed by this Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : 17. As was affirmed by this Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] a cardinal principle of the tax law is that the law to (2000) 241 ITR 312] a cardinal principle of the ta x law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless ot…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 303/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…to the cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand.’ The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312]. These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not effect the earlier assessment years. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Ex…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 302/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…to the cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand.’ The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312]. These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not effect the earlier assessment years. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Ex…

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 199/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…to the cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand.’ The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312]. These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not effect the earlier assessment years. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Ex…

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 198/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…to the cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand.’ The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312]. These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not effect the earlier assessment years. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Ex…

RAJAPALAYAM MILLS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE,, MADURAI

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

ITA 1251/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1251/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Rajapalayam Mills Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Post Box No. 1, Rajapalayam Mills Income Tax, Premises, P.A.C. Ramasamy Raja Corporate Circle, Salai, Rajapalayam, Madurai. Virudhunagar 626 117. [Pan: Aaacr8897F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Pcit Is Justified In Directing The Assessing Officer For Working Out Disallowance Under Section 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 2Section 263

…sessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand." 8 I.T.A. No.1251/Chny/24 11. The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] . These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not effect the earlier assessment years. 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 19…

SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/CHNY/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.173/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shriram Finance Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As Shriram Transport Income Tax, Finance Company Limited), Corporate Circle 3(1), Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Chennai. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 14ASection 2

…the cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand." 11. The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] . These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not effect the earlier assessment years. 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 19…

M/S LONGVIEW TEA CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 130/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

…ts under Section 119 of the Act, nevertheless affords a reasonable construction of it, and there is no reason why we should not adopt it. 7 AY: 2014-15 M/s. Longview Tea Co. Ltd. 17. As was affirmed by this Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] a cardinal principle of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. (See also Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 67] .) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. JINDAL ITF LIMITED, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed

ITA 1776/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 1776/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dcit Vs. M/S. Jindal Itf Limited Central Circle – 28 28, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110 015 Pan: Aabcj 9263 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

…uitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at hand." DCIT vs. Jindal ITF Ltd. Asst.Year :2012-13 11. The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] . These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not effect the earlier assessment years. 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 19…

Showing 1–20 of 119 · Page 1 of 6

CIT v. Goslino Mario (241 ITR 312) — Cited in 119 Judgments | BharatTax