CIT v. Scindia\nSteam Navigation Co. Ltd.

42 ITR 589Supreme Court of India1961#2037 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 23(1a)section 104 section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 194la keyman insurance section 160 section 23(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Scindia\nSteam Navigation Co. Ltd.

M/S Shankar Rice & General Mills, Moga vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan GargFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

…01.04.2017 for AY 2017-18, i.e. the relevant year underassessment. It is well-settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kasimtharuvi Tea Estates Limited vs. State of Kerala (1966) 60 1TR 262 (SC) and CIT vs. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Limited (1961) 42 ITR 589 wherein it has been held that any amendment in the Act which comes in force after the 1st day of April of 20 Shankar Rice & Gen. Mills v. Dy. CIT relevant FY would not apply to the assessment of that year, even if the assessment is actually made after the amendment came into force. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the judgment of the H…

Samir S Mehta, Maharashtra vs. CIT (A)-4, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.42/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Samir Shantilal Mehta, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, 1003, 10Th Floor, Sagardeep, South Surat. Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpm5453D (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Vartik Choksi & Biren Shah, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

…ot applicable to the case of the assessee. The ld Counsel has relied upon the following judicial pronouncement in support of his submissions:  Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1966) 60TTR 262  CIT vs. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1961) 42 ITR 589 (SC)  CIT(Central)-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. is notable 5. On the other hand, Ld DR for the Revenue submitted that there is no dispute as such on taxing the undisclosed cash and gold jewellery found during the course of search as the same was offered to tax in the return of Income. The ITA.42/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Samir Shantilal M…

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suryakant C Suchak, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 965/MUM/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसुं. 965/भ ुं/2020 (यन.ि.1999-2000) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(4),Mumbai, Room No.1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ...... अऩीराथी/Appellant फनाभ Vs. Shri Suryakant C. Suchak, 231, Krishna, 32-A Cross, 7Th Block, Jaynagar, Bangalore – 560 070. ..... प्रयििादी/Respondent Pan:Apjps-8359-A अऩीराथी द्िाया/ Appellant By : Smt. Esther Ninghauvung Hanghal प्रयििादी द्िाया/Respondent By : Shri Dilip Thakkar स निाई की यिधथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2023 घोषणा की यिधथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai *In Short ‘The Cit(A)’+ Dated 26/11/2019, For Assessment Year 1999-2000. 2 2. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Smt. Esther Ninghauvung HanghalFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Thakkar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(c)Section 69

…ot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only." In CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd [1961] 42 ITR 589, it was held that as the liability to pay tax is computed according to the law in force at the beginning of the assessment year, i.e., the first day of April, any change in law upsetting the position and imposing tax liability after that date, even if made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not…

S N Tradelink Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Srt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1St Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs0060R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

…April of a financial year, would not apply to the assessment for that year, even if the assessment is actually made after the amendments come into force. This position has been made clear by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 and in Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262." • Avani Exports Vs CIT as reported in [2012] 23 taxmann.com 62 (Guj.) The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case held that "Although in taxing statute laxity is permissible and after giving a benefit to the assessee based on some specific conditions, such benefit can defini…

DCIT Central Circle-04, New Delhi vs. Karamjit Jaiswal (L/H of Ladli Pershad Jaiswal), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4826/DEL/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

…ot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only." In CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd [19611 42 ITR 589, it was held that as the liability to pay tax is computed according to the law in force at the beginning of the assessment year, i.e., the first day of April, any change in law upsetting the position and imposing tax liability after that date, even if made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not…

DCIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi vs. Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4824/DEL/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

…ot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only." In CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd [19611 42 ITR 589, it was held that as the liability to pay tax is computed according to the law in force at the beginning of the assessment year, i.e., the first day of April, any change in law upsetting the position and imposing tax liability after that date, even if made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…A.Y. 2017-18 the same must have been passed before 01/04/2016 and not during the year. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT(Central)-I vs. Vatika Township Private Limited. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) • CIT vs. Scindia Steam Navigation (1961) 42 ITR 589 (SC) • Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. vs. State Of Kerala (1966) 60 ITR 0262 (SC) • STO v. Oriental Coal Corporation [1998] 68 STC 398 ; [1988] (Suppl.) SCC 308, (SC) • CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi), • DIT vs. Medical Trust of the Seventh Day Adventists [2017] 84 taxmann.com 202 (Madras HC) • Jayam and c…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

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

ITA 966/MUM/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 1999-2000

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 149(1)(c)

…legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation”, and have observed, in respectful concurrence with an earlier decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court on that issues, that “In the case of CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589, this Court held that as the liability to pay tax is computed according to the law in force at the beginning of the assessment year, i.e., the first day of April, any change in law affecting tax liability after that date though made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not apply to the assessment…

D.C.I.T., Cental Circle - 3(3) Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Shri Biswanath Garodia, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of assessee are also dismissed being academic in nature

ITA 1672/KOL/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjunlalsaini, Am]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 153A

…t be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only." In CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd [1961] 42 ITR 589, it was held that as the liability to pay tax is computed according to the law in force at the beginning of the assessment year, i.e., the first day of April, any change in law upsetting the position and imposing tax liability after that date, even if made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not…

Amoha Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2471/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Justice Shri P.P. Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Ms. Harkamal Sohi

Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 143(3)

…sment year, would not apply to that assessment year, even if the assessment is actually made after the amendments come into force. Their Lordships referred to the earlier decision of the apex court in the case of Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC) in which similar proposition of law was laid down while interpreting section 10(2)(vii) and proviso (iv) and section 66(1), (2) and (5) and in the said case it was held that the proviso though came into force on 5th May, 1946 could not be made operative from 1st April, 1946 and, therefore, no retrospective effect could be given to that provis…

Mesers P.D Sekhsaria Trading Company, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 331/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 331/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Sa No. 03/Asr./2019 (In Ita No. 331/Asr./2018: Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bathinda Dated 26.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.4,69,47,808/- Made

For Appellant: Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 2Section 234ASection 43(5)Section 43(5)(e)

…year, even if the assessment ITA No. 331/Asr./2018 28 SA No. 03/Asr./2019 P.D. Sekhsaria Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. is actually made after the amendments come into force." This principle is also applied in the cases of CIT v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd 42 ITR 589 (SC) & Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd v State of Kerala 60 ITR 2S2 (SC). Two important paragraphs from the judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced for reference: "Now, it is well-settled that the Income-tax Act, as it stands amended on the first day of April of any financial year must apply to the assessments of that year. Any amendmen…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. CIT-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABPC6181D Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2018 of ld. Pr. CIT-18, New De…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Mettam Penchala Naidu

ITTA/59/2010HC Telangana18 Sept 2018

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

Section 254(2)

…not been raised by the parties and yet the Tribunal has recorded a finding or a conclusion in respect thereof a question of law referable under s.256(1) arises. This position has been succinctly stated in CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1961) 42 ITR 589 (SC). Therefore, the exercise of power under s.254(2) in such a case would be -5- inappropriate. The so-called mistakes highlighted by the assessee in its application for rectification related to certain alleged erroneous conclusions. The conclusions may be inappropriate, but they per se do not constitute mistakes apparent fro…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3593/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri F V Irani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri TS Shivkumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 9Section 9(1)

…operation. 34. Most recently in CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) ; [2015] 1 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench, while quoting Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 (SC) ; [1976] 1 SCC 906 and CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC) ; [1962] 1 SCR 788 held as follows (page 486 of 367 ITR) : "Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be inter preted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a ret rospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern curre…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Sri Sudhir Sanghi

ITTA/58/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Section 254(2)