Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Vardharaja Theaters (P.) Ltd.

250 ITR 523High Court2009#23980 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Vardharaja Theaters (P.) Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 vs. Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

ITA/405/2022HC Delhi30 Nov 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…re, if Parliament chooses to confer a benefit through an amendment, it does not necessarily imply that it should be given retrospective effect, even without a legislative declaration. [See Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Vardharaja Theaters (P.) Ltd, (2009) 250 ITR 523 (Madras)]. This principle is also applicable where Parliament seeks to remove hardship through amendment. [See Commissioner of Wealth Tax v Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd (2017) 399 ITR 380 (Delhi)] (iii) An Explanation, which is clarificatory, must be read into the main provision, with effect from the date when the main provision came into…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 vs. Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

ITA-405/2022HC Delhi30 Nov 2023
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…re, if Parliament chooses to confer a benefit through an amendment, it does not necessarily imply that it should be given retrospective effect, even without a legislative declaration. [See Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Vardharaja Theaters (P.) Ltd, (2009) 250 ITR 523 (Madras)]. This principle is also applicable where Parliament seeks to remove hardship through amendment. [See Commissioner of Wealth Tax v Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd (2017) 399 ITR 380 (Delhi)] (iii) An Explanation, which is clarificatory, must be read into the main provision, with effect from the date when the main provision came into…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee appeals ITA Nos

ITA 496/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate and Shri.C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, Adl. CIT
Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…tled rule of interpretation is that unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation shall not be given to a statute and similarly as held by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Varadharaja Theaters 250 ITR 523 and also Finance Bill 2013 is very clear that amendment to Sec. 36(1)(vii) will take effect from 1st April, 2014 and shall apply from assessment year 2014-2015 onwards. Further, Explanations to Sec.36(1)(vii) of the Act is very clear that this is not retrospective and also clarification was sought in Finance Bill, 2013 to substantive with the p…

Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Vardharaja Theaters (P.) Ltd. (250 ITR 523) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax