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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Goslino Mario?

119 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Goslino Mario (241 ITR 312), spanning 2005 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Goslino Mario come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 8D, Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 36(1)(viia).

CIT v. Goslino Mario (241 ITR 312)

Zodiac Ventures Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 4754/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanzodiac Ventures Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 404, Dev Plaza, 68, S.V. Road, 11(3)(4) Andheri West, Mumbai – Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi 400058. Karve Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aafps7328J 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 250

…the cases of the present assessees. This fortuitous circumstance cannot take away the vested rights of the assessees at the hand. The reason of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Goslino Mario [2000] 241 ITR 312 at 314]. These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not effect earlier Assessment years.” Zodiac Ventures LTD; A.Y. 2016-17  Case No. 5: Civil Appeal Nos. 4742-4743 of 2021, M. M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-III,…

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Vishnu Distributors Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

ITA 50/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Section 131Section 14ASection 68

…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…

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 92/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

…f the Explanation to section 9(1)(ii), substituted by Finance Act, 1999, w.e.f. 01.04.2000. The amended explanation widened the scope of the provision, and was accordingly held as not clarificatory, making reference to decisions in CIT v. Goslino Mario [2000] 241 ITR 312 (SC); CIT v. S.R. Pattan [1992] 193 ITR 49 (Ker); and CIT v. S.G. Panatale [1980] 124 ITR 391 (Guj).An assessment, it explained, is to, in terms of the settled law, be made with reference to the law in force at the relevant time. The provision was accordingly held as prospective. Inasmuch as it is the ratio of a decision that has precedential val…

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

ITA 213/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member Diadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. CIT, Circle - 2 VKC Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 vs. Calicut 673655 [PAN:AABCD9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 16.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 28.03.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM The instant Appeal by the Assessee agitates the dismissal of it’s appeal by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)] c…

M/S. Vedanga Vinimoy Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1165/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 14A

…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…

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3375/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…DFC Bank Ltd. 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 199…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3374/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…DFC Bank Ltd. 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 199…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3371/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…DFC Bank Ltd. 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 199…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…DFC Bank Ltd. 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 199…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…DFC Bank Ltd. 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 199…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…DFC Bank Ltd. 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 199…

M/S. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 774/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R

Section 14ASection 234ASection 250

…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 M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 8 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 t…

Aarti Sponge and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, -1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 70/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Aarti Sponge & Power Ltd. Acit -1 (1) Aarti House, Ashoka Ratna Shankar Raipur Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492 001

For Respondent: Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…hi highcourt in the case of PCIT Vs Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) in ITA ITA 204/2022 & CM APPL.31445/2022 for AY 2013-14 dated 20/07/2022, has held as under: 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-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sapiens Technologies (1982) India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1361/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1361/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Sapiens Room No. 673, 6Th Floor, Technologies (1982) India Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Pvt. Ltd. Karve Marg, Mumbai- 22, New Pushpamilan, 67, 400020. Worli Hills, Mumbai- 400018. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci8674H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Vani Saxena Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Are As Under: - “(I) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Considering Daily Overseas Allowances Was Paid By The Company Being In The Nature Of Reimbursement Of Expenses Incurred By Employees On Their Business Trip To Overseas. (Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider That The Allowance Are Perquisite Within The Meaning Of Section 17(2) Of The I. T. Act & Hence It Will Be Taxable In India & Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Taxes At Source As Required U/S 40(A)(Iii).”

For Appellant: Ms. Vani SaxenaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 40

…t our aforesaid view is fortified by the host of Judgments/orders as had been relied upon by the Ld. A.R during the curse of hearing of the appeal. We rather find that after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Goslino Mario (2000) 241 ITR 312 (SC), the issue that daily allowance given to employees who are deputed abroad, being in the nature of reimbursement of the expenses which the employees had to incur on their food, etc., which are wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the purposes of their duties, would thus be exempt u/s 10(14) of the ‘Act’, is no more res integra. We thus set…

Puspak Steel Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

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

ITA 852/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 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 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 Wevin Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 367/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 201Section 250Section 254

…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 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…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3674/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 194Section 250Section 40

…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 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…

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax-Circle 3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 194Section 250Section 40

…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 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. Bhatia Global Trading Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibhatia Global Trading Ltd. Dcit 1(1) Through Official Liquidator Indore Old Cia Building, 1St Floor Vs. Opp. G.P.O. Residency Area, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacb6751 C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)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 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 1…

M/S. Calcutta Springs Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC- 1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 769/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

CIT v. Goslino Mario

What is CIT v. Goslino Mario authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Goslino Mario

Zodiac Ventures Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(4), Mumbai

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Vishnu Distributors Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

M/S. Vedanga Vinimoy Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata.

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

M/S. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

Aarti Sponge and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, -1(1), Raipur

DCIT-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sapiens Technologies (1982) India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Puspak Steel Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

M/S Wevin Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax-Circle 3(2), Mumbai

M/S. Bhatia Global Trading Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

M/S. Calcutta Springs Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC- 1(2), Kolkata