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.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd

ITA/52/2024HC Delhi03 Apr 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

…ing tax liability after that date, even if made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not apply to the assessment for that year. These principles were reiterated in CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC).” 18. Mr. Kapoor in this respect also drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co.9 and K.M. Sharma v. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 13(7), New Delhi10 9 (1964) 8 SCR 72 . The relevant passages from the judgment in S.S. Gadgil, are reproduced hereinbelow: 1…

M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 654/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascochin Shipyard Ltd. Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) Administrative Building C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Shipyard Premises Kochi 682018 Vs. Perumanoor P.O. Kochi 682015 [Pan:Aaacc6905B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh L. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…by the ld. Pr.CIT is the retrospectivity or otherwise of the amendment to s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Even as an amendment is, otherwise than where expressly so, or by necessary implication, to be regarded as prospective (CIT v. Vatia Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC)), most of the decisions in the matter, including by the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal (in Diadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd., bearing ITA No. 213/Coch/2023, dated 28/3/2024), have held the said amendment as retrospective. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on March, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tri…

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 580/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

…hat legislations which modify accrued rights or which impose obligations or imposed new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective. This is so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited (2014) 109 DTR 33 where the Hon’ble court has given the following finding for deciding whether a provision has prospective operation or retrospective operation:- “39(e) There is yet another very interesting piece of evidence that clarifies the provision beyond any pale of doubt, viz. understanding of CBDT itself regarding this provision. It is contained in CBDT cir…

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 579/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

…hat legislations which modify accrued rights or which impose obligations or imposed new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective. This is so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited (2014) 109 DTR 33 where the Hon’ble court has given the following finding for deciding whether a provision has prospective operation or retrospective operation:- “39(e) There is yet another very interesting piece of evidence that clarifies the provision beyond any pale of doubt, viz. understanding of CBDT itself regarding this provision. It is contained in CBDT cir…

ACIT, CC-2(1), Kol, Kolkata vs. Shalimar Hatcheries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 546/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 35(1)(ii)

…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,…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 663/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

…the credit balance in the Provisions account and only the excess can be claimed as deduction, is also covered in favour of the appellant Bank in the following cases,- i. Catholic Syrian Bank Vs CIT (2012) (343 ITR 270) (SC) ii. Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (2014)(367 ITR 466)(SC) iii. State Bank of Hyderabad (2015) ((8) TMI 836) (Trib.- Hyderabad) iv. IDBI Bank Ltd (2017) ((9) TMI 1289) (Trib.-Mumbai) v. Oriental Bank of Commerce (2017)((11 TMI 1589)(Trib.- Delhi) 7.5 The assessee further submitted that any subsequent recovery made in the loan accounts, which have been written- off, either at the Head Office level or…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

…the credit balance in the Provisions account and only the excess can be claimed as deduction, is also covered in favour of the appellant Bank in the following cases,- i. Catholic Syrian Bank Vs CIT (2012) (343 ITR 270) (SC) ii. Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (2014)(367 ITR 466)(SC) iii. State Bank of Hyderabad (2015) ((8) TMI 836) (Trib.- Hyderabad) iv. IDBI Bank Ltd (2017) ((9) TMI 1289) (Trib.-Mumbai) v. Oriental Bank of Commerce (2017)((11 TMI 1589)(Trib.- Delhi) 7.5 The assessee further submitted that any subsequent recovery made in the loan accounts, which have been written- off, either at the Head Office level or…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

…the credit balance in the Provisions account and only the excess can be claimed as deduction, is also covered in favour of the appellant Bank in the following cases,- i. Catholic Syrian Bank Vs CIT (2012) (343 ITR 270) (SC) ii. Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (2014)(367 ITR 466)(SC) iii. State Bank of Hyderabad (2015) ((8) TMI 836) (Trib.- Hyderabad) iv. IDBI Bank Ltd (2017) ((9) TMI 1289) (Trib.-Mumbai) v. Oriental Bank of Commerce (2017)((11 TMI 1589)(Trib.- Delhi) 7.5 The assessee further submitted that any subsequent recovery made in the loan accounts, which have been written- off, either at the Head Office level or…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore vs. Onmobile Global Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 271(1)(c)Section 92(3)Section 92C

…trospective effect. This is not even disputed by the Revenue before us as the issue of the Page 28 IT(TP)A No. 245/Bang/2023 & 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…

Onmobile Global Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 245/BANG/2023[2013-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2013-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 271(1)(c)Section 92(3)Section 92C

…trospective effect. This is not even disputed by the Revenue before us as the issue of the Page 28 IT(TP)A No. 245/Bang/2023 & 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…

Amarjeet Sing Aneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2252/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 234ASection 250

…I.T.A.No.2252/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Vs. ACIT Amarjeet Singh Aneja, 101, Aman Chamber, National E-Assessment 47/21, Old Rajinder Nagar, Center, New Delhi. Circle 61(1) New Delhi. PAN No. AADPA1889N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 12.10.2023 18.12.2023 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R…

Shri Hareshkumar Jayantilal Mahadevwala HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 248/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Hareshkumar Jayantilal I.T.O., Mahadevwala Huf, Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. 145, Sarjan Society, Parlepoint, Surat. Athwalines, Surat, Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaahh 8541 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 68

…on that the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act is not retrospective, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied on the following case laws: (12) Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs State of Kerela (1966) 60 ITR 262 (SC) (13) CIT Vs Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) (14) Samir Shantilal Mehta Vs ACIT ITA No. 42/Srt/2022 (Surat Trib) (15) Rajendra Ramanlal Desai Vs ITO ITA No. 293/Srt/2022 (Surat Trib) (16) DCIT Vs Punjab retail Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 677/Ind/2019 (Indore Trib) (17) ACIT Vs Sandesh Kumar Jain ITA No. 41/Jab/2020 (Jabalpur Trib) 7. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported th…

Go Gram Eco Foundation, Govindgarh Tehsil Chomu vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur

ITA 504/JPR/2023[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (F.C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 10Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

…lowed since 9 Go Gram Eco Foundation vs. CIT(E) the amended section is to remove the genuine hardship to the assessee and therefore it has a retrospective application as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited (2014) 367 ITR 466 where at Para 32 & 33 it is held that legislations which modify 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 a retrospective effect. However, if legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without in…

Krishna Hiren Gujarati, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD. 3(2)(4), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Krishna Hiren Gujarati, I.T.O., C-24, Krishna Park Society, Opp. Ward-3(2)(4), Vs. Bhagat Nagar, Ved Gurukul Road, Surat. Surat-4 (Gujarat) Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A

…on that the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act is not retrospective, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied on the following case laws: (11) Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs State of Kerela (1966) 60 ITR 262 (SC) (12) CIT Vs Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) (13) Sedco Forex International Drill Ltd. Vs CIT (2005) 279 ITR 310 (SC) (14) Avani Exports Vs CIT (2012) 23 taxmann.com 62 (Guj) (15) CIT Vs S.A. Wahab (1990) 48 Taxman 362 (Ker) (16) Samir Shantilal Mehta Vs ACIT ITA No. 42/Srt/2022 (Surat Trib) (17) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor Vs ITO ITA No. 245/Srt/2021 (Surat Trib) (18) JItendra Nemichand…

Shree Narmada Khand Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 104/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 102, 103 & 104/Srt /2023 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual hearing) Shree Narmada Khand Udyog I.T.O., Ward-2(1), Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Bharuch. Vs. Village-Dharikheda, PO-Timbi, Taluka-Nandod, District-Narmada (Gujarat)-393140. PAN No. AAAAS 2249 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate. Revenue represented by Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT-DR Date of…

Shree Narmada Khand Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 103/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 102, 103 & 104/Srt /2023 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual hearing) Shree Narmada Khand Udyog I.T.O., Ward-2(1), Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Bharuch. Vs. Village-Dharikheda, PO-Timbi, Taluka-Nandod, District-Narmada (Gujarat)-393140. PAN No. AAAAS 2249 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate. Revenue represented by Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT-DR Date of…

Shree Narmada Khand Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 102, 103 & 104/Srt /2023 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual hearing) Shree Narmada Khand Udyog I.T.O., Ward-2(1), Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Bharuch. Vs. Village-Dharikheda, PO-Timbi, Taluka-Nandod, District-Narmada (Gujarat)-393140. PAN No. AAAAS 2249 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate. Revenue represented by Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT-DR Date of…

Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 246/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.246/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, No.237, Vikram Nagar Society, Ward – 3(3)(1), Near Trikam Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aimpb4673N (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…Tea Estate Ltd. Vs State of Kerala as reported in [1966] 60 ITR 262 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs S.A. Wahab as reported in [1990] 48 Taxman 362 (Kerala) (iii) Avani Exports Vs CIT as reported in [2012] 23 taxmann.com 62 (Guj.) (iv) CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466/227 Taxman 121/49 taxmann.com 249 (SC). (v) Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CIT [2005] 279 ITR 310/149 Taxman 352 (SC) (vi) DCIT vs. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd. – [ITA No. 677/Ind/2019] (vii) Samir Shantilal Mehta vs. ACIT – [ITA No. 42/SRT/2022] (viii) ACIT vs Sandesh Kumar Jain – [ITA No. 41/JAB/2020] (ix) Rajendrabhai Ramanlal Desai vs. IT…

Tamilnadu Grama Bank, Ulundurpet vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, Gaziabad

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1040/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
Section 200ASection 234E

…, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court have decided the matter in favour of Department. The Id. CIT(A) has erred and not considered the landmark judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of CIT vs. Vegetable Products ltd. 88 ITR 192(SC) & CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) wherein it has been decided by the Apex Court that if there is a cleavage of opinion between different Courts on an issue, in absence of jurisdictional court judgement the one in favour of the assessee needs to be followed. The Appellant therefore pleads that it is pertinent to go with Apex Court landmark judgements and an order in favour of…

Tamil Nadu Grama Bank, Ulunduepet vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, Gaziabad

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1039/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
Section 200ASection 234E

…, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court have decided the matter in favour of Department. The Id. CIT(A) has erred and not considered the landmark judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of CIT vs. Vegetable Products ltd. 88 ITR 192(SC) & CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) wherein it has been decided by the Apex Court that if there is a cleavage of opinion between different Courts on an issue, in absence of jurisdictional court judgement the one in favour of the assessee needs to be followed. The Appellant therefore pleads that it is pertinent to go with Apex Court landmark judgements and an order in favour of…