CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd.

243 ITR 48Supreme Court of India2000#1213 most cited

What is CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. authority for?

A subsequent amendment cannot impose a new tax burden or liability for a period when such liability did not exist. Therefore, additional tax or penalty cannot be levied for non-disclosure of income made taxable retrospectively by an amendment not in force at the time of the original return.

94

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. · 243 ITR 48 · retrospective tax amendment · new tax liability · prospective operation of statutes · additional tax levy · penalty for non-disclosure · Section 28 · assessment procedure · Finance Act 1990

Sections most often in play

Section 1894Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 1961Section 45(5)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 14

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 23(1a)section 104section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 194lakeyman insurancesection 160section 23(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd.

DHARMENDRA RIKHAVCHAND SHAH, HUF,HIMATNAGAR vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT HURIS.THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

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

ITA 2680/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

…ax is payable on estimated and admitted income and not on additions made by the Assessing Officer, particularly when such additions are disputed and the assessment has been framed ex parte. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (243 ITR 48) has held that interest and advance tax provisions operate only on income which is accepted or admitted and not on income which is ultimately found not chargeable. In the case of Balwinder Singh vs. ITO [2024] 163 taxmann.com 599 (Amritsar - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee had no taxable income and there was no obligation on assessee to…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1), NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL JAIN, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Sh. Sahil Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), 117, Engineering Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afspj1105L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80J

…ew provisions cannot revive the barred right or take away the accrued vested right. was a substantive amendment creating new obligation and was not a matter of procedure. This contention takes support from the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court: 1. 243 ITR 48 (SC) CIT vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. “Income by way of cash compensatory support became taxable retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1967but that was by amendment of section 28 by the Finance Act, 1990 which amendment could not have been known before the Finance Act came into force. Levy of additional tax bears all the characteristics of…

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

ITA 992/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon’ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by neces…

BALBIR SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, SIRSA, HARYANA

ITA 483/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 458/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

SAT PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), , CHANDIGARH

ITA 243/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

GURDEEP SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

ITA 1153/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

BALJEET KAUR,NADI MOHALLA AMBALA CITY vs. ITO WARD 1, AMBALA, AMBALA

ITA 92/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

ITA 876/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon’ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by neces…

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

ITA 663/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

ANJU,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) , MOHALI

ITA 563/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

ITA 531/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon’ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by neces…

SAMAY SINGH,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO-WARD (5), YAMUNANAGAR

ITA 435/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE BARNALA vs. LAKHVIR SINGH, GRAIN MARKET, BARNALA

ITA 245/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

BALJIT SINGH,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

ITA 176/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

ITA 172/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon’ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by neces…

PREETO THROUGH L/H GURMUKH SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD NO. 3, PANCHKULA

ITA 1176/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

ITA 1112/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon’ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by neces…

SH. TEJ RAM,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD -5, PANCHKULA

ITA 697/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

RAGHBIR SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-1(3), CHANDIGARH

ITA 617/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…\n54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that\ntaxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective\nunless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan\nElectro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a\nsubsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such\nliability did not exist.\n55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR\n466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights\nare presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by n…

Showing 1–20 of 94 · Page 1 of 5