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.

M/S Vaibhavlaxmi Financial Advisory Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax-I, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2592/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr.AK.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 282Section 68

…tion, therefore, fails. 7 ITA No.2592/Kol/2013 & ITA No.882/Kol/2013 7. The second objection of the ld. AR was that the proviso to section 68 cannot be considered as retrospective in view of several judgments including CIT VS. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC), in which the levy of surcharge on income tax in case of block assessment has been held as prospective. We do not find any substance in the argument for two reasons. First reason is that this judgment does not deal with proviso to section 68 but with the levy of surcharge on income (supra). Relevant discussion has been made in paras 13.u.…

Rameshwar Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The CIT Kolkata-II, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 522/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year:2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES :D : KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JM Assessment Year:2008-09 Rameshwar Commercial Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltd., Kolkata-II, 38,Netaji Subhas Road, 2nd AayakarBhawan, Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata – 700 069. PAN : AADCR 7585 H Assessment Year:2008-09 Jupiter Commodeal Private Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Limited, Kolkata-II, 28, Armenian Street, 1st AayakarBhawan, Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700001. Kolkata – 700 069. PAN : AABCJ 9652 R Assessment Year:2009-10 M/s Yashoda De…

Four Dimensions Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1011/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…py Homes Enterprises (2015) 372 ITR 1 (Bom.) iii. CIT vs Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289 (Bom.)(para-5) iv. CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) v. CIT vs Shah Sadiq & Sons 166 ITR 102 (SC) (Para-9) vi. CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd. (2014), 367 ITR 466 (SC)(para-9). 8 Four dimensions Securities India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.322 & 790/Mum/2009 & Ors cases It is also noted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in M/s Krish Enterprises vs ACIT (ITA No.5554/Mum/2014) order dated 05/01/2015 and CIT vs CHD developers (ITA No.2902 & 4694/Del./2010) order dated 26/09/2012,…

DCIT -4(1), Mumbai vs. Four Dimension Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 790/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…py Homes Enterprises (2015) 372 ITR 1 (Bom.) iii. CIT vs Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289 (Bom.)(para-5) iv. CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) v. CIT vs Shah Sadiq & Sons 166 ITR 102 (SC) (Para-9) vi. CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd. (2014), 367 ITR 466 (SC)(para-9). 8 Four dimensions Securities India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.322 & 790/Mum/2009 & Ors cases It is also noted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in M/s Krish Enterprises vs ACIT (ITA No.5554/Mum/2014) order dated 05/01/2015 and CIT vs CHD developers (ITA No.2902 & 4694/Del./2010) order dated 26/09/2012,…

Four Dimensions Securities (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…py Homes Enterprises (2015) 372 ITR 1 (Bom.) iii. CIT vs Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289 (Bom.)(para-5) iv. CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) v. CIT vs Shah Sadiq & Sons 166 ITR 102 (SC) (Para-9) vi. CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd. (2014), 367 ITR 466 (SC)(para-9). 8 Four dimensions Securities India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.322 & 790/Mum/2009 & Ors cases It is also noted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in M/s Krish Enterprises vs ACIT (ITA No.5554/Mum/2014) order dated 05/01/2015 and CIT vs CHD developers (ITA No.2902 & 4694/Del./2010) order dated 26/09/2012,…

Sri Ramkrishna Samity, Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T.Cir - 2, Siliguri

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1680/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ananda Sen, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Adhir kr. Bar, CIT, ld.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147

…ourt 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…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…cannot, unless specifically mandated by the statute, be applied from retrospective effect. 22.27 Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Private Limited: 367 ITR 466 (SC). To the same effect are the following decisions wherein it has been held that a provision imposing liability is governed by the normal presumption that is not retrospective: - S.S.Gadgil vs. Lal and Co. (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC) - K.M.Sharma vs. ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) - Gem Granites vs. CIT (2004) 271 ITR 322 (SC) - Sedco Forex Internation…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) vs. Late Shri Sudhir Sareen

ITA/284/2015HC Delhi06 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 375

…The right of a wife to say “yes” to sexual intercourse includes the corollary i.e. the right to say “no” [See S. Sushma v. Commissioner of Police, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2096; and Indian Young Lawyers Assn. (Sabarimala Temple-5J.) v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1.] 27. The Independent Thought case is a binding authority for several propositions including aspects concerning MRE. This judgment is also a precedent that is relied upon for the proposition that Section 376B of the IPC and 198B of the Code create a separate and a more lenient penal regime when a separated husband subjects his wife to forceful…

M/S Jmc Projects (India) Ltd vs. The State of Karnataka

STRP/458/2012HC Karnataka18 Jun 2015

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 15Section 38(1)Section 63Section 63ASection 65(1)

…ision of Section 63A of the KVAT Act is without authority of law. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I –vs- Vatika Township Private Limited (2014) 367 ITR 466. 7. Per contra, Sri K.M.Shivayogiswamy, learned AGA appearing for the respondent has submitted that in the present case, the question of provision being retrospectively made applicable does not arise, as Section 63A of the KVAT Act was brought in prospectively with the power given to the Joint Commissioner to re-open or revise assessme…

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

…ITA 16/2014 & connected matters Page 1 of 142 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 16/2014 Reserved on: 5th November, 2014 % Date of Decision: 16th March, 2015 Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) ...Appellant Through Mr. N. Venkataraman, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Chopra and Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocates. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax – III …Responde…

The Commisioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Essar Digitronics Pvt Ltd

Appeals are dismissed with costs

ITA/397/2014HC Karnataka26 Feb 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 96

…se of renewal a new lease is required, while in extension same lease continuous by performance of stipulated act. In other words, ‘extension’ in its proper and usual sense in connection with a lease means prolongation of lease. 2 (2004) 1 SCC 1 State of U.P. and ors. v/s Lalji Tandon (dead) through LRs In case of extension, it is not necessary to have a fresh lease deed executed as extension would be necessary consequence of clause for extension. However, option of renewal has to be exercised consistently with terms thereof and if exercised, a fresh lease deed shall ha…

Deepak Kumar P Shenvi vs. State of Maharashtra

In the result, the writ petitions stand rejected with

WP/12346/2012HC Karnataka19 Dec 2013

Bench: A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

…tion to the police station. The investigation having commenced, the cases were registered in FIR Nos.118 and 206 of 2011 / RCC Nos.0400813/2011 and 1387/2011. 19 13. In the case of RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS, (2010) 1 SCC 1, the appellant had taken loan from a Co-operative Bank, which had its business operations in the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra and other States. Bank filed criminal complaint against the appellant in Ahmedabad in the State of Gujarat. The Magistrate issued a direction under S.156(3) of Cr.P.C., to the Economic Offences Wing, CID (Cr…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Laila Impex

ITTA/473/2012HC Telangana09 Jul 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax:Delhi-VIII vs. Ashok Mittal

ITA/26/2013HC Delhi07 Feb 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 151

…Page 11 of 18 reliance is placed on Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat (2008) 12 SCC 353 and on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 on the said aspect; (m). that the tenancy of the appellant/defendant after the demise of Lt. Col. G.M.S. Sandhu could not be split. Reliance in this regard is placed on (i) Habibunnisa Begum Vs. G. Doraikannu Chettiar (2000) 1 SCC 74; (ii) Niranjan Dass Vs. Trilok Chand 1995 Supp (3) SCC 196; (iii) Sk. Sattar Mohd. Choudhari Vs. Dundappa Amaba…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. A.R. Enterprises

C.A. No.-002688-002688 - 2006Supreme Court14 Jan 2013
Section 132Section 158BSection 260A

…he final total income for the relevant assessment year liable to be assessed. 34. In Brij Lal & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar4, while explaining the scope of the provisions on Advance Tax, this Court expressed the view that the 4 (2011) 1 SCC 1 26 Page 27 JUDGMENT “current income” in respect of which the assessee pays Advance Tax is not the same as understood in Section 2(45). In this regard, the Court held: “8. Liability to pay advance tax arises under Section 207. The said section is based on the principle “pay as you earn”. It requires tax to be paid during the f…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. A.R. Enterprises

C.A. No.-002688-002688 - 2006Supreme Court14 Jan 2013
Section 132Section 158BSection 260A

…he final total income for the relevant assessment year liable to be assessed. 34. In Brij Lal & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar4, while explaining the scope of the provisions on Advance Tax, this Court expressed the view that the 4 (2011) 1 SCC 1 26 Page 27 JUDGMENT “current income” in respect of which the assessee pays Advance Tax is not the same as understood in Section 2(45). In this regard, the Court held: “8. Liability to pay advance tax arises under Section 207. The said section is based on the principle “pay as you earn”. It requires tax to be paid during the f…

Sri B V Acharya S/O Late Ramachandra Acharya vs. Sri N Venkateshaiah

WP/14047/2012HC Karnataka03 Aug 2012

Bench: V.JAGANNATHAN

Section 156(3)Section 482

…he Apex Court reported in AIR 1962 SC 876 as well as the other decisions reported in 1985(2) VII Crimes 132, 1997 Crl.L.J. 4383, 2002 III AD Delhi 1051, 2003 Crl.L.J. 866, 2004 Crl.L.J. 2633, 2010(2) SCC (Cri) 1085, 2003 SCC (Cri) 1305, (1984)2 SCC 500, (2007)1 SCC 1, (1998)4 SCC 626, 2011(11) ILR-CUT-894, (2006)6 SCC 728 and (2012)1 SCC 130. 23 31. The submission therefore made is that the impugned order of the learned Special Judge does not call for any interference by this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 32. Concerning the decision of the Apex…

M/S. Govind Impex (P) Ltd vs. Appropriate Authority Income Tax Deptt

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and

Crl.A. No.-000041-000041 - 2004Supreme Court07 Dec 2010
Section 267ASection 269USection 278BSection 482

…se, Mr. Salve has relied on a large number of decisions of this Court viz. Provash Chandra Dalui and another v. Biswanath Banerjee and another, (1989) Supple.(1) SCC 487, State of U.P. and others v. Lalji Tandon (Dead) through Lrs., (2004) 1 SCC 1 and 4 Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede and Company, (2007) 5 SCC 614. 5. Mr. Ramesh P. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent, however, contends that from a bare perusal of the lease deed it is evident that the term of lease was extendable for a period of nine years more and, therefore, in view of the explanation to Se…