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.

Murarilal Murarka, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 636/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44A

…ative argument, it is prayed to restrict the disallowance to the extent of 30% u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Our attention was drawn to page 12 of the paper book as also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) and it is argued that since the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was brought to remove the hardship, the same is curative and therefore retrospective in nature and the assessee has requested to restrict the disallowance to 30% as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2014. 11. We have considered the submiss…

Raghavan Ramanathan, Chennai vs. JCIT Non Corp Circle 7(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2879/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl
Section 115USection 139(1)

…sting genuine hardship faced by Category I and Category II AIFs. Therefore, the Appellant submits that the amendment brought in to Section 115UB of the Act should be considered as a curative amendment in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court reported in 367 ITR 466 (Vatika Township case) as the same was brought in to cure the existing hardships faced by the taxpayers. He furthermore, submitted that the technicality of not reporting in the Return of Income filed for the assessment year 2018-19 and 2019-20 is beyond the control of the appellant and the same cannot be the reason for rejecting the claim of the…

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Sri N. Suresh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

…ITA No.1267/Bang/2024 Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AssessmentYear:2016-17 Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Chinmaya Mission CMH Road, Indiranagar ACIT (Exemptions) Vs. Bangalore 560035 Circle-1 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATK0797Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri N. Suresh, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of t…

Anatole Solutions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1082/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 56(2)(viib)

…an be considered to be clarificatory in nature, explaining the intention of the law already in place. Per contra, such amendment has resulted into increase in tax burden on the assesses. A.8 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) observed that of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities, which is based on the principle…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is allowed

ITA/87/2025HC Delhi24 Apr 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…age. Before ordering the deletion of any part of the Plaint, which amounts to its dismissal, the Court is required to be certain and categoric that the chances of success of the Suit do not exist. 1 (1994) 1 SCC 1 Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:28.10.2025 14:37:03 Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 87/2025 Page 7 of 9 16. In the present case, the Plaintiff has specifically alleged that her brother obtained her signature on blank papers in April 2022, when s…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir 1(3)(1), Income Tax Department vs. Skate Trades and Agencies Private Limited, Raichur Street Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1663/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Room No.535, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…endment not relating to the rates, could only be applied to the assessments of that financial year and not of the previous year. Reliance is placed on the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.I.T v. Vatika Township Private Ltd. (2015) 1 SCC 1. The learned Counsel would also place before us a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, [AIR 1966 SC 1385], Guffic Chem P. Ltd v. C.I.T [2011(4) SCC 245], C.I.T v. Sarkar Builders [(2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC)], Shiv Raj Gupta v. C.I.T [(2020) 425 ITR 420 (SC)] and State of Kerala v. Alex Geo…

Shashikala Bhimacharya Malagi, Gokak, Karnataka vs. ITO, Ward-1, Gokak, Karnatka

The appeal is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 180/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 180/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shashikala Bhimacharya Malagi 0, Soubhagya, Kalyan Housing Colony, Gokak, Belgaum-591307 Pan : Bdypm3708B . . . . . . .Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gokak. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Himanshu Gandhi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. 1055706480(1) Dt. 04/09/2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 20/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Himanshu Gandhi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…ng an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We find that, aforestated proposition has been clearly elaborate and emerged from in the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd.’ [2014, 367 ITR 466 (SC)]. 13. We further note that, precisely on the subject matter as to whether operation of section 115BBE of the Act prospective, or retrospective finds answer in ‘CIT Vs Prakash Chand Lunia’ [2023 (4) TMI 1057 (SC)]. wherein their Hon’ble Lordship concluded that; section 115BBE, introduced by the Finance Act 2012 & came into effect ITAT-Panaj…

Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Pune

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

ITA 1587/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad Ito, Ward 6(2), Pune B-504, Crossover Country, Sinhagad Vs. Road, Wadgaon Khurd, Pune – 411041 Pan: Acypl2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe
Section 143(2)Section 69A

….Y. 2019-20 order dated 08.06.2022 10. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act cannot be applied retrospectively for the transactions prior to 15.12.2016: a. CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) b. CIT vs. K. Raheja Hotels & Estate (P.) Ltd. (2014) 51 taxmann.com 258 (SC) 8 c. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC) d. Govinddas vs. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC) e. CIT vs. Sandesh Kumar Jain vide ITA No.41/JAB/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 order dated 31.10.2022. 11. He also relied on the following decisions: a. CIT V…

Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Rajkot vs. The ITO WD-2(1)(5), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/RJT/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.173/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 266, Kuvadva Gidc, Opp. 2,(1)(5), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs. Riddhi Agro Industries, Kuvadva, Bhavan, Race Course Ring Rajkot-360003 Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acxpp9434A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08 /01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) , Vide Order Dated 25.012024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2. The Id. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To The "Cit(A)"] Erred On Facts As Also In Law Confirming Addition Of Rs.86,68,718/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act On The Alleged Ground That The Appellant Failed To Prove Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of Various Parties From Whom Unsecured Loan Of Rs.86,68,718/-Were Ita No. 173-Rjt-2024 Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44ASection 68

…under Section 36, with up to 1 month imprisonment and fine of ₹1,000 per offense. 4. For the judicial precedent, the principle that fraud committed in one place cannot be used as evidence elsewhere is supported by S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1, where the court held that fraudulent documents cannot form the basis of any legal claim in subsequent proceedings. 5. If indeed the Appellant was a wholesale trader in agricultural products as per his own admission, he failed to produce his license. 6. Due to these reasons this appeal is liable to be rejected.” ITA NO. 173-RJT-2024 SHRI RAJESH KARS…

Late Abdulkadar Lashkari, Legal Heir- Abdulsatar Lashkari, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward - 2(7), Jamnagar

ITA 364/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 364/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Abdulkadar Lashkari L/H Abdulsatar Lashkari Vs. The Ito Ward -2(7), Jamnagar Prop. Noori Fruit Agency Minara Fari, Vora Wad Subhash Market Jamnagar- 361001, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaepl0027C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashta Maniyar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 1Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 288ASection 44ASection 68

…ble under Section 36, with up to 1 month imprisonment and fine of 21,000 per offense. For the judicial precedent, the principle that fraud committed in one place cannot be used as evidence elsewhere is supported by S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1, where the court held that fraudulent documents cannot form the basis of any legal claim in subsequent proceedings. 5 LATE ABDULKADAR LASHKARI If indeed the Appellant was a wholesale trader in agricultural products as per his own admission, he failed to produce his license. Due to these reasons this appeals is liable to be rejected.” We have heard…

Gastrade International vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

C.A. No.-004475-004475 - 2025Supreme Court28 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…nce charged. On the other hand, civil liability is less blameworthy, and penalty, if any, is less severe. 77. The expression “preponderance of probability” has been explained by this Court in M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J) v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1. In the aforesaid case, this Court applied the test of a prudent man who upon weighing the various probabilities finds that Page 64 of 76 the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. It was observed that even in the case of proof by preponderance of probability, there may be degrees of probability within that sta…

Amita Singh, Kaimur vs. Assessement Center, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 606/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 606/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Amita Singh,………………………….……..……Appellant Prop. M/S. Singh Auto Centre, Village- Helwanta, Post-Kudra, Kaimur-881108, Bihar [Pan:Bhzps1664R] -Vs.- Assessment Centre, …………………………...Respondent Delhi, National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 21, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…ITA No. 606/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2018-2019) Amita Singh IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 606/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Amita Singh,………………………….……..……Appellant Prop. M/s. Singh Auto Centre, Village- Helwanta, Post-Kudra, Kaimur-881108, Bihar [PAN:BHZPS1664R] -Vs.- Assessment Centre, …………………………...Respondent Delhi, National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi Appearances by: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of…

Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh, Rawatbhata

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1513/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…licting views taken by the two Hon'ble Courts, then the view, which favours the assessee should be adopted. In this regard, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (supra), the demand so raised are directed to be deleted. assessment years.” On being consistent to the finding so recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench, we find no merit to sustain the levy as per provisions of section 234E of the Act and thereby and…

Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1512/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…licting views taken by the two Hon'ble Courts, then the view, which favours the assessee should be adopted. In this regard, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (supra), the demand so raised are directed to be deleted. assessment years.” On being consistent to the finding so recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench, we find no merit to sustain the levy as per provisions of section 234E of the Act and thereby and…

Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited, Rawatbhata vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh, Rawatbhata

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1511/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…licting views taken by the two Hon'ble Courts, then the view, which favours the assessee should be adopted. In this regard, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (supra), the demand so raised are directed to be deleted. assessment years.” On being consistent to the finding so recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench, we find no merit to sustain the levy as per provisions of section 234E of the Act and thereby and…

Ajmer Vidhut Nitran Nigam Limited, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh, Rawatbhata

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1510/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…licting views taken by the two Hon'ble Courts, then the view, which favours the assessee should be adopted. In this regard, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (supra), the demand so raised are directed to be deleted. assessment years.” On being consistent to the finding so recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench, we find no merit to sustain the levy as per provisions of section 234E of the Act and thereby and…

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhupalsagar, Chittorgarh vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1509/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…licting views taken by the two Hon'ble Courts, then the view, which favours the assessee should be adopted. In this regard, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (supra), the demand so raised are directed to be deleted. assessment years.” On being consistent to the finding so recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench, we find no merit to sustain the levy as per provisions of section 234E of the Act and thereby and…

Ajmer Vidyut Nigam Limited, Bhupalsagar vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh, Bhupalsagar

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1508/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…licting views taken by the two Hon'ble Courts, then the view, which favours the assessee should be adopted. In this regard, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (supra), the demand so raised are directed to be deleted. assessment years.” On being consistent to the finding so recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench, we find no merit to sustain the levy as per provisions of section 234E of the Act and thereby and…

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhupalsagar vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh, Bhupalsagar

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1507/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…licting views taken by the two Hon'ble Courts, then the view, which favours the assessee should be adopted. In this regard, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (supra), the demand so raised are directed to be deleted. assessment years.” On being consistent to the finding so recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench, we find no merit to sustain the levy as per provisions of section 234E of the Act and thereby and…

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhupalsagar vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1506/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…licting views taken by the two Hon'ble Courts, then the view, which favours the assessee should be adopted. In this regard, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township (supra), the demand so raised are directed to be deleted. assessment years.” On being consistent to the finding so recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench, we find no merit to sustain the levy as per provisions of section 234E of the Act and thereby and…