CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.

367 ITR 466Supreme Court of India2014#25 most cited

What is CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Taxing statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless a clear contrary intention for retrospective application is evident. The law applicable for determining tax liability is that which stands on the first day of the assessment year, following the principle that law looks forward, not backward (lex prospicit non respicit).

1,558

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 383,853 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. · 367 ITR 466 · retrospective amendment · prospective operation · interpretation of taxing statutes · tax law applicability · lex prospicit non respicit · assessment year · law looks forward · section 143(1)

Also reported as

1 SCC 1109 DTR 33271 CTR 1

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69Section 200A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

retrospective amendmentsection 43bsection 43section 115section 139section 11undisclosed incomesection 143(1)section 132section 13previous yearsection 15

Judgments citing CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.

ACIT -CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Successor to M/S.Magna Distribution & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 2505/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…Parliament is to give retrospective operation of law and accordingly held as under: "The Test to be applied is essentially one of the intent of the legislature . 28. In a more recent decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 1 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench of this Court held thus: 29. In M/s. Vijay Industries (supra), decided on 1 March 2019, a three judge Bench of this Court held that the provisions of Section 80AB which were introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1980 with effect from 1 April 1981 could not be regarded as clarificatory in nature. The Court held that the provision…

Chalet Hotels Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 1401/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…Parliament is to give retrospective operation of law and accordingly held as under: "The Test to be applied is essentially one of the intent of the legislature . 28. In a more recent decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 1 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench of this Court held thus: 29. In M/s. Vijay Industries (supra), decided on 1 March 2019, a three judge Bench of this Court held that the provisions of Section 80AB which were introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1980 with effect from 1 April 1981 could not be regarded as clarificatory in nature. The Court held that the provision…

Chalet Hotels Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 1400/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…Parliament is to give retrospective operation of law and accordingly held as under: "The Test to be applied is essentially one of the intent of the legislature . 28. In a more recent decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 1 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench of this Court held thus: 29. In M/s. Vijay Industries (supra), decided on 1 March 2019, a three judge Bench of this Court held that the provisions of Section 80AB which were introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1980 with effect from 1 April 1981 could not be regarded as clarificatory in nature. The Court held that the provision…

Amsons Steel Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT Cir-6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 970/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.970/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Amsons Steel Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-6(1)(1) Plot No. A/16, Wagle Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Industrial Estate, Road Road, Mumbai-400020. No.8, Thane-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4716G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Bekal Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 06.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well In Law The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering Fair Market Value Of The Properties As On 30.05.2013 Determined By The District Valuation Officer-1, It Deptt, Mumbai-12 Vide His Report Dated 21.02.2019 As Against Stamp Duty Value Adopted By Learned Assessing Officer Even Through Your Appellant Sold At Prevailing Market Rate At Arm’S Length Principle. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well In Law The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Giving The Benefit Of Curative Amendment Inserted In Section 43 Ca By Finance Act, 2018 W.E.F. 01.04.2019 & Subsequently Finance Act, 2020 W.E.F.

For Appellant: Shri Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43C

…s. ACIT (2022) (144 taxmann.com 168) wherein the question of retrospective application of proviso to section 43CA of the Act for AY. 2015-16 was considered and the Tribunal taking note of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. 367 ITR 466 (SC) noted that the intent of the legislature was to provide relief to the assessee in case difference is less than 10%. According to Tribunal, this amendment has been brought into effect from 01.04.2021, thereby providing benefit to the assessee if difference is less than 10%. And since this being a beneficial provision, therefore, needs to be g…

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1735/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy v. DCIT, Circle- 2(3)(1) Solutions Pvt. Ltd Room No. 552 Dhanraj Mahal, 2nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Marg Mumbai – 400020 Near Regal Cinema, Colaba Mumbai- 400039 PAN: AADCT5273A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Shri Ninad Patade Department Represented by : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date of conclusion of Hearing : 23.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement :…

Om Prakash Bishu, Kuchaman City vs. DCIT, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 142A(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Sh. Om Prakash Bishnu Vs DCIT, Marwar Zanana Hospital, Jodhpur Ward No. 4, Hospital Road, Tehsil Kuchaman City, Nagaur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AKKPB 3832 H Assessee By Sh. C. M. Agarwal, CA Revenue By Sh. S. M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 13/07/2023 Date of 18/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur dated…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 119/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jignesh (P) Shah reported in 372 ITR 392 where the adverse order passed by following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 466 was followed. It is relevant to mention that in this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to make following observations: - "On this interpretation of sec 2(22)(e) of the Act, unless the appellant is the shareholder of the company lending him money, no occasion to apply can arise." 27. Now, let us examine the other case-laws relied upon…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 118/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jignesh (P) Shah reported in 372 ITR 392 where the adverse order passed by following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 466 was followed. It is relevant to mention that in this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to make following observations: - "On this interpretation of sec 2(22)(e) of the Act, unless the appellant is the shareholder of the company lending him money, no occasion to apply can arise." 27. Now, let us examine the other case-laws relied upon…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jignesh (P) Shah reported in 372 ITR 392 where the adverse order passed by following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 466 was followed. It is relevant to mention that in this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to make following observations: - "On this interpretation of sec 2(22)(e) of the Act, unless the appellant is the shareholder of the company lending him money, no occasion to apply can arise." 27. Now, let us examine the other case-laws relied upon…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jignesh (P) Shah reported in 372 ITR 392 where the adverse order passed by following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 466 was followed. It is relevant to mention that in this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to make following observations: - "On this interpretation of sec 2(22)(e) of the Act, unless the appellant is the shareholder of the company lending him money, no occasion to apply can arise." 27. Now, let us examine the other case-laws relied upon…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Venkateswara Rao Thotakura, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 295(1)Section 295(2)Section 90Section 90ASection 91

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.17/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs. Sri Venkateswara Rao Tax, Circle-3(1), Thotakura, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Andhra Pradesh-530016. PAN: ANRPT 8274 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri I. Kama Sastr…

Elara Capital (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Milind DattaniFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule (Addl. CIT)
Section 14A

…eration Relying on the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M M judgements of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M M Aqua Technologies Ltd Vs CIT (436 ITR 582)&CIT Vs Vatika Aqua Technologies Ltd Vs CIT &CIT Vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (367 ITR 466), wherein it has been held that Township Pvt Ltd , wherein it has been held that any legislation which imposes new obligation or new duties or any legislation which imposes new obligation or new duties or any legislation which imposes new obligation or new duties or a new levy shal a new levy shall have to be necessarily treated as prospective l…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. A.R. Stanchem (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 672/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35(1)(ii)Section 80G

…ld be branded that such a donation was bogus one. This retrospective effect cannot be given on the bonafide belief and for this purpose, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Vatika Township Pvt. Limited reported in 367 ITR 466. He also made reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur –vs.- State of Maharashtra [AIR 1994 S.C. 2623]. On the strength of these two decisions, he submitted that a procedural statute should not generally be applied retrospectively, where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations,…

M/S Kerala Feeds Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT Cir (1)(1) & Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 942/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Varghese C.V., CA/ARFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 155Section 2(45)Section 245D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Aby T.Varkey, JM ITA No.942/Coch/2022: Asst.Year:2012-2013 Kerala Feeds Limited Asstt. CIT, Kallettumkara, Iranjalakuda CPC, vs. Thrissur – 680 683. Bangalore [PAN: AAACK9796N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri. Varghese C.V., CA/AR Respondent by: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Date of Hearing: 17.05.2023 Pronouncement: 30.06.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee, directed against the appellate order dated 25.8.2022 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC…

Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Kalburgi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1126/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…ITA No.1126/Bang/2022 Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Hingulambika Education Society Sy.No.55/2, Bhavsar Nagar ITO (Exemptions) Sedam Road Ward-1 Vs. Gulbarga 585 106 Kalburgi Karnataka PAN NO : AAFTS4816F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

Rahul Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-46(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7956/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 154Section 260ASection 271

…7 Rahul Agarwal retrospective in effect. This provision restricts the scope of adjustment of seized cash, and, therefore, is to be treated as advance to the assessee. As held by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [20141.367 ITR 466, the legislation which modifies accrued rights or which imposes obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective, unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect. In view of these discussions and consistent with the stand taken by the co-ordinate bench, we approve…

Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

In the result, grounds No

ITA 245/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

…77 (Del-Trib) 9. On retrospective amendment under Section 115BBE of the Act, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied on the following case laws: (1) Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs State of Kerala (1966) 60 ITR 262 (S) (2) CIT Vs Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) (3) Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. Vs CIT (2005) 279 ITR 310 (SC) (4) Avani xports Vs CIT (2012) 23 taxmann.com 62 (Guj) (5) CIT Vs S.A. Wahab (1990) 48 Taxman 362 (Kerala) (6) DCIT Vs Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 677/Ind/2019 10. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. Sr.DR for…

Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 370/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihallli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…laratory in nature and would have retrospective effect. This is not even disputed by the Revenue before us as the issue of the nature of such declaratory statutes stands considered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466/227 Taxman 121/49 taxmann.com 249 and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Foods (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308/172 Taxman 386 (SC). (r) In the above facts and circumstances, question (iii)(a) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee. Question (iii)(b) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and i…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/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 Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR Date of hearing : 18/04/2023 Date of pronouncement : 12/06/2023 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (for shor…

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…In the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd 119 CTR 222 (SC) it was held that, "As per well established law provision regarding levy of penalty and increased rate are in the nature of substantive law and not objective law,". ii. In the case of Vatika Township (P) Ltd 367 ITR 466 (SC) it was held that, "Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment retrospective effect; unless legislation is for purpose of Page No. | 10 CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO supplyi…