CIT v. Goslino Mario

241 ITR 312Supreme Court of India2000#882 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 366,470 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

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 767/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

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…

M/S. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd., Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Durgapur

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

ITA 534/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

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

Section 14ASection 250

…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. 6 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 M/s. Bengal Shristi Infrstructure Development Limited 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substi…

Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1013/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ted 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…

Lintas India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2018/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

…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…

Shah and Sanghavi Developers LLP, Vesu, Surat vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 241/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran K. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 23(3)Section 23(5)

…ed Motors v CIT 224 ITR 677 (SC) (proviso inserted to remedy unintended consequences must be treated as retrospective); CIT v Podar Cement 226 ITR 625 (SC); UOI v Muthyam 240 ITR 341 (SC). The Hon`ble Supreme Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] held that 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 pur…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Clp India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 290/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)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(l)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 19…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2285/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…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…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2273/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…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…

Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 350/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 284/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Cit(A), Nfac (Delhi) Vs 40, Strand Road Model House Ground Floor Room No. 102 Kolkata - 700001 Pan : Aaacw5921F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT
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…

Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 284/KOL/2021[2015-116]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2015-116

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 284/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Cit(A), Nfac (Delhi) Vs 40, Strand Road Model House Ground Floor Room No. 102 Kolkata - 700001 Pan : Aaacw5921F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT
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…

Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, this ground is allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.B Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 14ASection 194HSection 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. Ukn Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1739/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(vii)

…e 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 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…

Toyota Tsusho India Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 175/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e 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…

Babul Fiscal Services Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)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. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chitradurga vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) - Ward, Davangere

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 566/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…a view to disentitling him to some extent from the exemption. 3.1 Useful reference could also be made to the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.[2009] 313 ITR 1 (SC) 2. CIT v. I.T.I. Ltd.[2009] 221 CTR (SC) 619 3. CIT v. Goslino Mario[2000] 241 ITR 312 (SC) ; and 4. CIT v. Micro Land Ltd.[2010] 323 ITR 670 (Karn.) To the question as to whether assessee-employer is bound to collect and verify proof of journey and actual expenditure incurred for section 10(5) before granting exemption under that provision, it was held by the hon'ble courts that there is no such requirement in the law. The provisi…

M/S. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chitradurga vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) - Ward, Davangere

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 565/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…a view to disentitling him to some extent from the exemption. 3.1 Useful reference could also be made to the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.[2009] 313 ITR 1 (SC) 2. CIT v. I.T.I. Ltd.[2009] 221 CTR (SC) 619 3. CIT v. Goslino Mario[2000] 241 ITR 312 (SC) ; and 4. CIT v. Micro Land Ltd.[2010] 323 ITR 670 (Karn.) To the question as to whether assessee-employer is bound to collect and verify proof of journey and actual expenditure incurred for section 10(5) before granting exemption under that provision, it was held by the hon'ble courts that there is no such requirement in the law. The provisi…

M/S. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chitradurga vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) - Ward, Davangere

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 564/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…a view to disentitling him to some extent from the exemption. 3.1 Useful reference could also be made to the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.[2009] 313 ITR 1 (SC) 2. CIT v. I.T.I. Ltd.[2009] 221 CTR (SC) 619 3. CIT v. Goslino Mario[2000] 241 ITR 312 (SC) ; and 4. CIT v. Micro Land Ltd.[2010] 323 ITR 670 (Karn.) To the question as to whether assessee-employer is bound to collect and verify proof of journey and actual expenditure incurred for section 10(5) before granting exemption under that provision, it was held by the hon'ble courts that there is no such requirement in the law. The provisi…

M/S. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chitradurga vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) - Ward, Davangere

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 563/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…a view to disentitling him to some extent from the exemption. 3.1 Useful reference could also be made to the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.[2009] 313 ITR 1 (SC) 2. CIT v. I.T.I. Ltd.[2009] 221 CTR (SC) 619 3. CIT v. Goslino Mario[2000] 241 ITR 312 (SC) ; and 4. CIT v. Micro Land Ltd.[2010] 323 ITR 670 (Karn.) To the question as to whether assessee-employer is bound to collect and verify proof of journey and actual expenditure incurred for section 10(5) before granting exemption under that provision, it was held by the hon'ble courts that there is no such requirement in the law. The provisi…