CIT v. S.R. Patton

193 ITR 49High Court1992#2162 most cited

What is CIT v. S.R. Patton authority for?

The Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii), introduced in 1983, widens the scope of the section and is not merely declaratory. It operates prospectively from April 1, 1979, and cannot be applied to periods prior to that date.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.R. Patton · Section 9(1)(ii) · Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) · income deemed to accrue or arise in India · retrospective application · prospective operation · scope widened · not declaratory · 193 ITR 49 · S.G. Pgnatale

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 14(2)section 17(2)goodwill arising on amalgamationsection 43(6)(c)section 5(b)section 14(1)section 55(2)section 10(33)

Judgments citing CIT v. S.R. Patton

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)

…ome earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker.)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, it di…

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

…ome earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(l)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(l)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section 9(l)(ii) of the Act, it did…

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

…ome earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker.)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, it di…

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

…ome earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker.)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, it di…

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

…ome earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker)] while following the Gujarat I.T.A. No. 284/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 I.T.A. No. 350/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 5 High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even…

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

…ome earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker)] while following the Gujarat I.T.A. No. 284/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 I.T.A. No. 350/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 5 High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even…

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

…ome earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker.)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, it di…

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)

…me earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker.)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even Page 7 of 17 if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section 9(1)(ii) of…

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

…ome earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 ITA Nos.7 & 8/Bang/2019 Page 7 of 26 (Ker.)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there wa…

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

…ome earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 ITA Nos.7 & 8/Bang/2019 Page 7 of 26 (Ker.)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there wa…

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

…wed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. SP No.12/B/2022 & IT(TP)A No.175/B/2022 Page 12 of 15 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker.)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, it di…

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

…e earned in India.” The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, it did…

Sedco Forex International Drill.Inc.&Ors vs. Commnr. of Income Tax, Dehrudun

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-000351-000355 - 2005Supreme Court17 Nov 2005
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun & Anr
Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(ii)

…Finance Act 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section (9)(1)(ii) without any change. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income tax vs. S.R. Patton [1992] 193 ITR 49, while following the Gujarat High Court’s decision in S.G. Pgnatale (supra), to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, it did not operate in r…