CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara

310 ITR 105Supreme Court of India2009#7859 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also reported as

178 Taxmann 285

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 43CASection 50CSection 132Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

Issues it is cited on

section 113safe harboursection 50c(1)section 43csection 43caretrospective amendmentfull value of considerationtransfer of capital assetblock periodsection 56(2)(x)stamp duty valuesection 40a(2)(b)

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI vs. GAURAV INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant V/S Gaurav Investments, 1St Floor, B & C Block, Tradelink, E-Wing, ……………… Respondent Kamala Mill Compounds, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aadfg0064D

For Appellant: Shri Kshitiji Kasi ViswanathFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43C

…held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supreme Court was of the view that the issue ought to be referred to a larger Bench of Five Judges. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given fundamental doctrine of retrospective applicability of provision. It has been held that no statute shall be construed to ha…

DCIT 42 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYENDRA KUMAR TRILOKNATH GOYAL, MUMBAI

Accordingly\nwe see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) who has deleted the\naddition made by the AO under section 43CA of the Act.\n16.\nIn result, appeal filed by the revenue i...

ITA 4421/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 250Section 43CSection 66Section 68Section 69C

…d that the\nproviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into\nblock assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect.\nSimilar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v.\nRajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the\nproviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supreme Court\nwas of the view that the issue ought to be referred to a larger Bench of\nFive Judges. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given\nfundamental doctrine of retrospective applicability of provision. It has\nbeen held that no statute shall be construed…

SHARATH KUMAR REDDY SAREDDY,WANAPARTHY, MAHABUB NAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, MAHABUBNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1096/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1096/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Sharath Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Sareddy, Wanaparthy Ward – 1 Mahbubnagar Mahbubnagar Pan:Hpwps0712H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 194BSection 58(4)

…7 ITR 322 (SC) held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B from retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 310 ITR 105 (SC) by holding the proviso u/s.113 to be retrospective in nature. Once again, this Dinar Umeshkumar More issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2009) 314 ITR 338 (SC). Unable to concur with the earlier view holding such an amendment to be retrospective, their Lordships referred Page…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 1283/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

…held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supreme Court was of the view that the issue ought to be referred to a larger Bench of Five Judges. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given fundamental doctrine of retrospective applicability of provision. It has been held that no statute shall be construed to ha…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1273/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

…held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supreme Court was of the view that the issue ought to be referred to a larger Bench of Five Judges. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given fundamental doctrine of retrospective applicability of provision. It has been held that no statute shall be construed to ha…

SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly.\n15. In result, appeal of both the assessees in ITA No. 1172 & 1173/Chny/2025\nare allowed and the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1173/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

…d that the proviso to\nsection 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block\nassessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect.\nSimilar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v.\nRajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the\nproviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supreme Court\nwas of the view that the issue ought to be referred to a larger Bench of\nFive Judges. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given\nfundamental doctrine of retrospective applicability of provision. It has\nbeen held that no statute shall be construed…

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

ITA 1172/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

…held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supreme Court was of the view that the issue ought to be referred to a larger Bench of Five Judges. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given fundamental doctrine of retrospective applicability of provision. It has been held that no statute shall be construed to ha…

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. A-DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2220/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, CA
Section 148Section 43C

…held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara [2009] 178 Тахтап 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supreme Court was of the view that the issue ought to be referred to a larger Bench of Five Judges. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given fundamental doctrine of retrospective applicability of provision. It has been held that no statute shall be construed to ha…

ALRAMEEZ CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 482/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. 707/708, 7Th Floor, Jms Business Centre Behram Baug, Oshiwara Link Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai-400 080 Pan: Aafca8078A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 143Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 275Section 43C

…held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara [2009] 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supreme Court was of the view that the 10 M/s Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. issue ought to be referred to a larger Bench of Five Judges. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given fundamental doctrine of retrospective applicability of provision. It has been held…

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

…held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara [2009] 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supreme Court was of the view that the issue ought to be referred to a larger Bench of Five Judges. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given fundamental doctrine of retrospective applicability of provision. It has been held that no statute shall be construed to ha…

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

…held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara [2009] 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supreme Court was of the view that the issue ought to be referred to a larger Bench of Five Judges. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given fundamental doctrine of retrospective applicability of provision. It has been held that no statute shall be construed to ha…

SAI BHARGAVNATH INFRA,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1332/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C

…322 (SC) also held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV–B with retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 310 ITR 105 (SC) by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supreme Court was of the view that the issue ought to be referred to a larger Bench of Five Judges. In this decision, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has given fundamental doctrine of retrospective applicability of provision. It has been held that no statute shall be construed…

DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1503/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

…TR 322 (SC) held that the proviso to section 113 is clarificatory and hence, should be read into block assessment scheme under Chapter XIV-B from retrospective effect. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 310 ITR 105 (SC) by holding the proviso u/s.113 to be retrospective in nature. Once again, this 15 Dinar Umeshkumar More issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2009) 314 ITR 338 (SC). 367 ITR 466 (SC) came to consider this issue. It has been laid down in this decision that ordinarily legislat…

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

C.A. No.-008750-008750 - 2014Supreme Court15 Sept 2014
Section 113Section 132Section 154Section 158B

…ision Bench. In addition, these counsel articulated some more arguments with all enthusiasm and temerity, reference to which would be made while giving our analysis to the various provisions leading up to the answer to the issue involved. 2 (2009) 310 ITR 105 (SC) Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 27 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 28 JUDGMENT Scheme of Chapter XIVB 27. Before we proceed to answer the question, it would be necessary to keep in mind the scheme of block assessment introduced in Chapter XIVB to Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f…

CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (310 ITR 105) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax