CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd.

243 ITR 48Supreme Court of India2000#1200 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 366,470 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.

Laxminarayan Synthetics, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 201/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.147 & 234/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha R. Shokla, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, G-3, Deepanjali Appartment, Sai Bangalore. Krupa Society, No.4-Airport Road, Nani Daman. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bgyps2563M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.150/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Riddhi Siddhi Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, 75-1 & 75-2, Gidc, Pandesara, Bangalore. Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7050C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Chinco Textiles, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, Plot No.104, Road No.7, Gidc Bangalore. Sachin, Surat-394230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefc0028N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.201 & 202/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Plot No.275/2, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-394221. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfs5319N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.224 & 225/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Tirupati Prints, Vs. The Adit, Cpc, S. No.207, Plot No.37 To 40, Bangalore. Bamroli Taluka: Choryasi, Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabft4240J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 36

…as to warrant disallowance of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance by reducing the figure on the basis of only CBDT circular."  Further the Honorable Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Hindustan Electro Graphite Limited - 243 ITR 48(SC) concluded that when assessee had not included the cash compensatory support in his return of income as per the legal position then prevailing, additional Tax under section 143(1A) could not be levied on subsequent inclusion of such receipt by retrospective amendment of section 28 of the Act. Thus, even when the amendment is made on retrospecti…

DCIT - (Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6267/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Yadav &For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA / CO No. A.Y Appellant Respondent No. 1 6267/Mum/2018 2009-10 DCIT – (LTU) -1 Reliance Industries World Trade Centre, Ltd, 3rd Floor, Maker Centre No -1, 2 6268/Mum/2018 2008-09 29th Floor, Cufee Chamber IV, Parade, Mumbai – Nariman point, 400 005. Mumbai – 400 021. 3 6269/Mum/2018 2007-08 4 CO.243/Mum/2019 2007-08 Reliance Industries DCIT – (LTU) -1 (In ITA No. Ltd, World Trade 3rd Floor, Maker 6269/Mum/2018) Centre, 5 CO.244/Mum/2019 2008-09 Chamber IV, Centre No -…

R Systems International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 690/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 115JSection 154Section 234B

…section 28 was amended w.e.f. 1.4.1967 and CCS was made liable to tax. Adjustment made based on retrospective amendment was held to be unjustified. Similar view was taken in CIT v. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 16 (MP), it has been affirmed in 243 ITR 48 (SC). Just as adjustment u/s 143(l)(i) based on retrospective amendment cannot be made, similarly adjustment under proviso to clause (i) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) could not have been made when return for AY 2007-08 was filed because in both the cases, circumstances were beyond the control of the assessee. Had the assessment for AY 2007-…

The DCIT (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Baroda Cricket Association, Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 999/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Appellant: Ms.Aparna M.Agarwal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Nirmit Mehta, AR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 271(1)(c)

…, the aforesaid amendment seeking to deny benefit of s.11 to the assessee was not in existence at the time of filing of return of income. 9.3. The law in this regard is loud and clear. In CIT vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 160 CTR(SC) 8 : (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) in the context of applicability of the provisions of section 28(iiib) of the Act, the Apex Court quoted. "An assessee cannot be imputed with clairvoyance. When the return was filed, the assessee could not possibly have known that the decision on the basis of which cash compensatory support had been claimed as not amounting to the assessee's…

The DCIT (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Baroda Cricket Association, Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1001/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Appellant: Ms.Aparna M.Agarwal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Nirmit Mehta, AR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 271(1)(c)

…, the aforesaid amendment seeking to deny benefit of s.11 to the assessee was not in existence at the time of filing of return of income. 9.3. The law in this regard is loud and clear. In CIT vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 160 CTR(SC) 8 : (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) in the context of applicability of the provisions of section 28(iiib) of the Act, the Apex Court quoted. "An assessee cannot be imputed with clairvoyance. When the return was filed, the assessee could not possibly have known that the decision on the basis of which cash compensatory support had been claimed as not amounting to the assessee's…

The DCIT (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Baroda Cricket Association, Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1000/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Appellant: Ms.Aparna M.Agarwal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Nirmit Mehta, AR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 271(1)(c)

…, the aforesaid amendment seeking to deny benefit of s.11 to the assessee was not in existence at the time of filing of return of income. 9.3. The law in this regard is loud and clear. In CIT vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 160 CTR(SC) 8 : (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) in the context of applicability of the provisions of section 28(iiib) of the Act, the Apex Court quoted. "An assessee cannot be imputed with clairvoyance. When the return was filed, the assessee could not possibly have known that the decision on the basis of which cash compensatory support had been claimed as not amounting to the assessee's…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. D.B. Corp. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2880/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…volve a debatable issue or are effected by retrospective amendments made to the Act. The law in this regard is well settled and reliance in this regard is placed by appellant on the following judicial precedents:- i) CIT vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (243 ITR 48) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no penal action can be brought against an assessee as a result of any retrospective amendment in law, especially when the assessee could not foresee such law at the time of filing of return of income. The relevant extract of the judgment \has been reproduced below:- "An assessee cannot be imputed wi…

V.N.G.Mercantile Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2332/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Him. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld.Ao. 4. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Entire Administrative Expense Amounting To Rs.2,99,255/- While Passing The Assessment Order. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld.Ao. 5. For That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Delete All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 74

…ion 40 only with effect from 1st April, 2005. Therefore, any omission prior to 1st April, 2005 could not have visited the assessee with any penal consequences. He relied on a judgement in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd , reported in (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC). What had happened in that case was that the return for the assessment year 1989-90 was filed by the assessee in December, 1989. The Finance Bill, 1990 got presidential assent on 31st May, 1990 and was made applicable retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1967. By the amendment cash assistance was made taxable. Since the assessee who ha…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 348/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…in assessee’s own case for the Asst Year 2003-04 in ITA No. 57/Kol/2007 dated 9.12.2015, we had also relied on the aforesaid decision together with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd reported in (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) as below:-. In this case, the assessee company filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the very constitutionality of section 143(1)(a) read with section 143(1A) and section 4 and also the intimation sent by the AO levying additional tax. High court speaking through one of us (Ruma Pal, J.) noticed that section 28 of the Act was a…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…in assessee’s own case for the Asst Year 2003-04 in ITA No. 57/Kol/2007 dated 9.12.2015, we had also relied on the aforesaid decision together with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd reported in (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) as below:-. In this case, the assessee company filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the very constitutionality of section 143(1)(a) read with section 143(1A) and section 4 and also the intimation sent by the AO levying additional tax. High court speaking through one of us (Ruma Pal, J.) noticed that section 28 of the Act was a…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. E.I.H. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

ITA 2182/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, ld.CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…r, such obligations can only be discharged in the light of the law as it stands at that point of time.” 3.5.2. We also place reliance on the following decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd reported in (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC in this regard. In this case, the assessee company filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the very constitutionality of section 143(1)(a) read with section 143(1A) and section 4 and also the intimation sent by the AO levying additional tax. High court speaking through one of us (Ruma Pal, J.) noticed that section 28 of the Act wa…

DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai vs. M/S. Niraj Cement Structurals Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 801/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit Cen Cir 36 M/S. Niraj Cement Structurals R.No.11, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan,, Ground Floor, Sunder Baug, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Niraj House, Opp. Deonar Depot. Deonar, Mumbai-400088 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aabcn1596J Revenue By Shri S.S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent By None (Ar)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 80I

…ade by the Finance Act, 2007, and relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai bench of ITAT, in the case of Bharat Udyog Ltd., supra. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Electro Graphite Ltd. 243 ITR 48, where it was held as under: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that where a return is filed the law applicable would be the law as it stood on the date of filing of the return. In the instant case, there was not even a bona fide mistake and in fact it was not a case where under some mistaken belief the assessee did not disclose the cash compensatory…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Jagatjit Industries Ltd

The appeal is disposed of

ITA - 187 / 2004HC Delhi11 Nov 2011
Section 32ASection 43ASection 43A(1)

…into consideration while computing investment allowance. The tribunal after referring to the several decisions did not follow their earlier orders after relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in CIT versus Hindustan Electro Graphites Limited, (2000) 243 ITR 48. 6. We need not refer to the factual matrix in detail as the legal issue pertains to computation of investment allowance on enhanced liability of Rs. 1,71,527/- representing increase in capital cost 2011:DHC:5694-DB ITA No. 187/2004…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Jagatjit Industries Limited

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/187/2004HC Delhi11 Nov 2011
Section 32ASection 43ASection 43A(1)

…into consideration while computing investment allowance. The tribunal after referring to the several decisions did not follow their earlier orders after relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in CIT versus Hindustan Electro Graphites Limited, (2000) 243 ITR 48. 6. We need not refer to the factual matrix in detail as the legal issue pertains to computation of investment allowance on enhanced liability of Rs. 1,71,527/- representing increase in capital cost 2011:DHC:5694-DB ITA No. 187/2004…