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 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Mangaluru vs. M/S. Karnataka Law Society, Belgavi

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 547/BANG/2017[2010 - 11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Prathiba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(6)

…Income Tax(Exemptions) Vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (ITA No.62/2010 and connected matters) decided on 22.02.2016, in which following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 466(SC)], the Division Bench of this Court held that the amendment of Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was prospective in application and would apply from the Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards only. The assessment year in the present case before us in ITA No.94/PNJ/2014 is A.Y. 2010-11 for the respondent-assessee/Karnataka Law Society, Tilakaw…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Mangaluru vs. M/S. Karnataka Law Society, Belgavi

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 546/BANG/2017[2009 - 10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Prathiba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(6)

…Income Tax(Exemptions) Vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (ITA No.62/2010 and connected matters) decided on 22.02.2016, in which following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 466(SC)], the Division Bench of this Court held that the amendment of Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was prospective in application and would apply from the Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards only. The assessment year in the present case before us in ITA No.94/PNJ/2014 is A.Y. 2010-11 for the respondent-assessee/Karnataka Law Society, Tilakaw…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-(Exemptions), Circle - 1, Mangaluru vs. M/S. Karnataka Law Society, Belgavi

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 545/BANG/2017[2008 - 09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Prathiba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(6)

…Income Tax(Exemptions) Vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (ITA No.62/2010 and connected matters) decided on 22.02.2016, in which following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 466(SC)], the Division Bench of this Court held that the amendment of Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was prospective in application and would apply from the Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards only. The assessment year in the present case before us in ITA No.94/PNJ/2014 is A.Y. 2010-11 for the respondent-assessee/Karnataka Law Society, Tilakaw…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Mangaluru vs. M/S. Karnataka Law Society, Belgavi

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2017[2007 - 08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Prathiba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(6)

…Income Tax(Exemptions) Vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (ITA No.62/2010 and connected matters) decided on 22.02.2016, in which following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 466(SC)], the Division Bench of this Court held that the amendment of Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was prospective in application and would apply from the Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards only. The assessment year in the present case before us in ITA No.94/PNJ/2014 is A.Y. 2010-11 for the respondent-assessee/Karnataka Law Society, Tilakaw…

ADIT (E), New Delhi vs. Fortune Society for Development and Promotion of International Business, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2

ITA 2698/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2

…nt years. 35. Para 7.6 of the Circular states that the amendment would apply to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) and CIT vs Vatika Township (367 ITR 466) = 2014-TIOL-78-SC-IT-CB for the proposition that an amendment that increases the liability of an assessee is liable to be applied only prospectively. Mr. Narayanaswamy would object stating that the amendment had been inserted to a correct an existing anomaly and thus was clearly clarificatory, and consequently retrospective in operation. 36. We…

Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T Range - 50, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 724/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel of AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, CIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well". CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466/227 Taxman 121/49 taxmann.com 249 (SC) - Five Judges decision of the Supreme Court :— "We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a correspond…

Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T Range - 50, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 723/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel of AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, CIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well". CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466/227 Taxman 121/49 taxmann.com 249 (SC) - Five Judges decision of the Supreme Court :— "We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a correspond…

Sarvodaya Education Trust vs. The Union of India

WP/39434/2013HC Karnataka03 Aug 2017

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

Section 1Section 2(1)

…charged only for paying the salary, etc. to the teachers and not for paying the gratuity. 27 17. Relying on the Apex Court judgment in case of COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, NEW DELHI v. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED reported in (2015) 1 SCC 1, he would contend that the legislations, which modified the 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. Paragraph No.28 of the said decision, read out by him, is extracted herein…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

ITTA/480/2017HC Telangana01 Aug 2017
For Respondent: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy
Section 120BSection 25Section 27Section 302

…the entire prosecution case. (See the decisions in Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175; State of UP v. Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324; Lalitha Kumari v. Government of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1, and Amish Devgan v. UOI (2021) 1 SCC 1). 12. It is true that the aforementioned decisions would undoubtedly reveal the position that an FIR is not meant to be a detailed document containing a chronicle of all intricate and minute details. 13. Even after referring to the decisions mentioned above, we think it equally relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in Dharma Ram…

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

ITTA/455/2017HC Telangana06 Jul 2017

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

…d in (1980) 4 SCC 597, relevant paragraph- 3 and 4. (2) Accountant General & Anr Vs. S. Doriswamy & Ors, reported in (1981) 4 SCC 93, relevant paragraph- 4 and 7; (3) Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala Vs. Larsen & Tubro Ltd, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 170, relevant paragraphs-29, 30, 31,32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39 and 41. (4) Jayam and Company Vs Assistant Commissioner and Anr, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 125 (relevant paragraphs 2, 6, 16 to 19); (5) Union of India & Ors Vs N.S. Rathnam & Sons, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 681, relevant paragraph 1, 12, 13 to 21. 14. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate…

Lal Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 515/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 148Section 45(3)Section 50CSection 69C

…d on this date can only be taken as full value of consideration even u/s 50C. this amendment being a beneficial amendment to avoid unintended hardship has to be given a retrospective effect as held by Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. 367 ITR 466 wherein in 33 of this order it was 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 wit…

M/S. Mahasakti Foundation, Kalahandi vs. ACIT, Sambalpur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 134/CTK/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

…urt held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well”. CIT vs Vatika Township P Ltd reported in (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) – Five Judges decision of the Supreme Court “We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person o…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Karnataka State Cricket Association, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

ITA 1615/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (E), Circle – 1, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. M/S Karnataka State Cricket Association, Chinnaswamy Stadium, Mg Road, Bangalore. . Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Swapna Das, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 143(3)

…High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions (2012) 348 ITR 344 (Ker) and has followed its own decision in the case of Society of Sisters of St. Anne (1984) 146 ITR 28 (kar) and of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). 3.4.2 The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (Supra) in paras 15 to 25 of the order are extracted hereunder:- 15. The question involved in this case is no more res integra. This question was considered by this Court as far back as in the year 1984, in the case of Society of the Sister's…

N Venkatanathan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

In the result these appeals by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7378/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Neomi LakhpatiaFor Respondent: Shri. Kailash Kanojiya
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234Section 234B

…ng that it is 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 Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited, (2014)367 ITR 466 (SC), the legislation which 13 N.Venkatanathan ITA nos.7378 to7383/Mum./2014 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 wi…

M/S. Rakesh Raj and Associates, New Delhi vs. ACIT (CPC), Ghaziabad

In the result all the appeals of the assesse in ITA No

ITA 4694/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Sh. SomilAggarwal& Sh. DeepakFor Respondent: Sh. BedobaniChaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234Section 234E

…ion 234E was indeed beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 200A”. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, New Delhi vsVatika Township (P) Limited, 367 ITR 466 (SC). In view of the above judgments, it is humbly prayed that since the issue in the present appeal before your Honour is also covered with the above judgments, the fee imposed by the Ld. O which is contrary to law and facts of the case, my kindly be directed to be deleted.” 5. The ld. CIT(A) however rejected all the grounds of the assesse prima…

Akash Enterprise, Thane vs. I.T.O. Ward-4(1), Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4489/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 M/S Akash Enterprises, Income Tax Officer, Shop No.27/A, Bldg. No.1, Ward-4(1), बनाम/ Akashganga Apts. 02Nd Floor Vs. Shriprastha Complex, Qureshi Mansion, Nallasopara (W), Tal Vasai, Gokhale Road, Dist-Thane-401203 Thane Pan No.Aalfa4071C ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2007-08 Income Tax Officer, M/S Akash Enterprises, Ward-4(1), Shop No.27/A, Bldg. बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, No.1, Akashganga Apts. Vs. Qureshi Mansion, Shriprastha Complex, Gokhale Road, Nallasopara (W), Tal Thane Vasai, Dist-Thane- 401203 Pan No.Aalfa4071C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Akash Enterprises.

Section 147Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ’ ’ ’ ’ ए, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह जोिग"दर "सह जोिग"दर "सह, , , , "याियक सद"य जोिग"दर "सह "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य एवं "याियक सद"य "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year-2007-08 M/s Akash Enterprises, Income Tax Officer, Shop No.27/A, Bldg. No.1, Ward-4(1), बनाम/ Akashganga Apts. 02nd Floor Vs. Shriprastha Complex, Qureshi Mansion, Nallasopara (W), Tal Vasai, Gokhale Road, Dist-Thane-401203 Thane PAN No.AALFA4071C ("नधा"रती /Assesse…

V.N.G.Mercantile Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2332/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Him. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld.Ao. 4. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Entire Administrative Expense Amounting To Rs.2,99,255/- While Passing The Assessment Order. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld.Ao. 5. For That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Delete All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 74

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,‘C’BENCH, KOLKATA Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member A.Y 2005-06 M/s. V.N.G Mercantile Vs. Income Tax Officer Private Limited Ward 5(4), Kolkata/ PAN: AABCV 7629N CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Appearances by: Shri Rajeev Kumar, Advocate, ld.AR for the assessee Shri P.K Chakraborty, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR for the revenue Date of hearing : 28-02-2017 Date of pronouncement : 26-04-2017 O R D E R Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM :- This appeal by the assessee is against the order dt: 26-10- 2012 passed…

Geeta Star Hotels & Resorts P Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/JPR/2017[QUARTER-IV 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2017
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri P. P. Meena (JCIT)
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…” • M/s. Sandeep Jhanwar Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The TDS CPC (ITA No. 722 & 723/JP/2016) “..We find merit into the contention of ld. Counsel that the jurisdictional High Court has deci…

ITO, Ward - 1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gkw Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 459/KOL/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 459/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 1996-97

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)

…on the following decisions in support of his other contentions:- 8 I.T.A. No. 459/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 1996-97 M/s. GKW Ltd. a) CWT vs Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons reported in (1994) 210 ITR 886 (SC) b) CIT vs Vatika Township P Ltd reported in (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) c) CIT vs Virgin Creations in GA No. 3200/2011 dated 23.11.2011 rendered by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court d) CIT vs Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corporation in ITA No. 129 of 2006 dated 21.2.2012 rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. 5.5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on re…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sangeeta Mishra

ITA/423/2004HC Delhi03 Mar 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 158BSection 68

…of the Income tax), the reference to “previous year” as the income for which tax is levied and the special procedure for assessment of undisclosed income relatable to materials seized during a search, in Commissioner of Income Tax v Vatika Township [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) in the following terms: “Undisclosed income referred to in Chapter XIVB is not relateable to the previous year. On the contrary, it is for the block period which may be 6 years or 10 years, as the case may be. Consequently, as already mentioned, while analyzing the scheme of Chapter XIVB, such Chapter is a complete code in respect of a…