Fiber Boards (P) Ltd., Bangalore v. Commissiioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

10 SCC 333Reported decision2015#5387 most cited

What is Fiber Boards (P) Ltd., Bangalore v. Commissiioner of Income Tax, Bangalore authority for?

When a legal provision is omitted, action taken based on that omitted provision is invalid, as illustrated by the Supreme Court's explanation of previous judgments in Fiber Boards (P) Ltd.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Fiber Boards (P) Ltd. · omitted provision · repealed provision · Section 6A · Section 24 · General Clauses Act · Supreme Court · explained judgments

Sections most often in play

Section 115JAASection 115JBSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 8DSection 92BA(i)

Issues it is cited on

section 92ba(i)section 3asection 6(1)section 92baspecified domestic transactionreference to tposection 92bgoing concernslump salesection 40a(2)section 40a(2)(b)section 92c

Judgments citing Fiber Boards (P) Ltd., Bangalore v. Commissiioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, CC-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 1144/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 115QSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…able and 'omission' amounts to 'repeal'. This submission gains support from the following judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court: - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2005 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills, reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that 'omission' would amount to 'repeal'. - Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram Sharma Vs Union of I…

Inmobi Technology Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for AY

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…n Provisions] Act, 2020 introducing Section 144B. The learned Additional Solicitor General, to support this contention relies upon Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fibre Boards (P.) Ltd. v. CIT[2015] 10 SCC 333/[2015] 62 taxmann.com 135/376 ITR 596. 15. Sri A. Shankar in rejoinder rebuts the canvass on the maintainability of the writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 20-9-2022 [Annexure- A1] contending that the petitioner does not challenge the jurisdiction of the first respondent to pass the impugned order because the petitioner's case bef…

Uttam Energy Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-12, Pune

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2033/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…would not be included. We are, therefore, of the view that the second so-called ratio of the Constitution Bench in Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd.[(1969) 2 SCC 412] cannot be said to be a ratio decidendi at all and is really in the nature of obiter dicta."[(2015) 10 SCC 333 at p. 354] The Court even declared that the two five-Judge Bench decisions (.Rayala Corporation and Kolhapur Canesugar) were per incuriam as they did not consider Section 6-A of the GC Act. The Court with ITA No.2033/PUN/2019 / Uttam Energy Limited [A] this effect held that: “33. A reading of this section would show that a repeal by an amending…

Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /Jt/ACIT/NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1554/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Infrastructure Vs. Addl. Joint / Deputy / Leasing and Financial Asst. Commissioner of Services Limited Income Tax The IL & FS Financial National e-Assessment Centre Centre, Plot C-22, G Block Delhi Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAACI0989F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Bhupal Rapelli Revenue by Shri Anoop Hiwase Date of Hearing 23/01/2024 Date of Pronouncement 31/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid a…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1146/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…epeal of the Act in respect of the area which its operation is excluded ( emphasis and under lines are added by us). 17. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real d…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1145/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…epeal of the Act in respect of the area which its operation is excluded ( emphasis and under lines are added by us). 17. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real d…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1113/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…epeal of the Act in respect of the area which its operation is excluded ( emphasis and under lines are added by us). 17. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real d…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1112/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…epeal of the Act in respect of the area which its operation is excluded ( emphasis and under lines are added by us). 17. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real d…

Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1111/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…epeal of the Act in respect of the area which its operation is excluded ( emphasis and under lines are added by us). 17. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real d…

DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hind Aluminium Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1904/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…Mum/2023 & CO No.107/Mum/2023 M/s. Hind Aluminium Industries Ltd. Canesugar Works Ltd vs. Union of India (2000)2 SCC 536 and then after the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2015) 10 SCC 333 wherein they have explained the judgment of Rayala Croporation (P) Ltd & Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. supra and Shri Bhagwati Steel Rolling vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2016) 3 SCC 643. The relevant submissions of the Ld. DR are incorporated as under:- As can be seen from the above, even at the time of insertion of section 928A, the legisl…

Tranztar Commercial Vehicle Applications Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6624/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92C

…ially when action has been taken after the provision has been omitted. During the course of argument a reference was made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fiber Boards (P) Ltd., Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, (2015) 10 SCC 333 and Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2016) 3 SCC 643 to convass the point that the earlier judgments of Constitutional Bench in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 1970 SCR 1 (69) and Kohlapur Cane Sugar [supra] have been not followed or have been overruled. First of all, nowhere the Hon’ble Apex Court in both…

Fabsun Engineering vs. The Income Tax Officer

Appeal is allowed

ITA/193/2015HC Karnataka14 Oct 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 260Section 54GSection 54G(1)

…ith effect from 01.04.1988 and sale has taken place on 19.03.1997. Further, Section 54G of the Act has been introduced simultaneously with the omission of Section 280ZA of the Act. 2 [2015]10 SCC 333 (para 39) I.T.A No.193/2015 7 9. He argued that Section 280Y(d) of the Act was omitted by the Finance Act, 1990 and not simultaneously with omission of Section 280ZA of the Act. Section 280Y(d) being a d…

Sri. Krishna Diamonds, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 232/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goutham, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 234BSection 92B

…epeal of the Act in respect of the area which its operation is excluded ( emphasis and under lines are added by us). 17. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that ‘omission’ would amount to ‘repeal’. It is also held that there is no real d…

York Tech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. and MsFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT-DR and Shri M. Baranwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.635/DEL/2021 Assessment Year 2016-17 Yorkn Tech Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT, Circle-25(1), 17, Kemkunt Colony, Opp. New Delhi. Nehru Place, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCO86061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. and Ms. Ragini Handa, CA Respondent by: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT-DR and Shri M. Baranwal, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 27 07 2021 Date of pronouncement: 18 08 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM:- The aforesaid appeal has b…

M/S Sobha City, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2936/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…ITA No.2936/Bang/20180 M/s. Sobha City, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Sobha City E-106, Sunrise Chambers 22, Ulsoor Road Ulsoor Vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(2) Bangalore 560 042. Bangalore PAN NO : ABIFS9913P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Nageshwar Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2021 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal c…

M/S. Cauvery Aqua Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2021/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2021/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 40ASection 6Section 92BSection 92C

…epeal of the Act in respect of the area which its operation is excluded ( emphasis and under lines are added by us). 17. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards P. Ltd dated 11.08.2015 reported vide [(2015) 52 taxmann.com 135] /(2015) 10 SCC 333, as well as in the matter of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [CA No.4280 of 2007, dt.24.11.2015], reported vide (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases elaborately discussed the issue of repeal /omission/ amendment etc, and held that IT(TP)A No.2021/Bang/2019 M/s. Cauvery Aqua Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of…

Firmenich Aromatics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 348/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing In Virtual Court No.2)

For Respondent: Shri Bomi Daruwala with
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 254(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual hearing in Virtual Court No.2) ITA. No.348/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Firemenich Aromatics (India) ACIT- Circle -4(2), Pvt Ltd, Room No. 642, 6th Floor, Arena Space, Building, 9th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. 4, Survey No 20, M.K. Road, Vs. New Shyam Nagar Road, Mumbai-400020. Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Next to Kapltaru Building, Behind Majas BEST Depot, Majaswadi, Jogeswari East, Mumbai 400060, PAN: AAACF1621M ITA. No.1732/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year…

Sri K S Ashok Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the following:

WP/32454/2016HC Karnataka06 Apr 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

…sions of the new law and the mere absence of a saving clause is by itself not material. (iv) The case of Fibre Boards Private Limited, Bangalore -vs- Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [(2015) 10 SCC 333] wherein it is held that the repeal can be by express omission. An implied repeal of a statute would fall within the expression 'repeal' in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Repeals may take any form and so long as a statute or part of it is obliterated, such obliteration would be covered by the expression 'repeal' in Section 6 of the Ge…

Mr. K.C. Shankare Gowda vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the following:

WP/5353/2016HC Karnataka06 Apr 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

…sions of the new law and the mere absence of a saving clause is by itself not material. (iv) The case of Fibre Boards Private Limited, Bangalore -vs- Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [(2015) 10 SCC 333] wherein it is held that the repeal can be by express omission. An implied repeal of a statute would fall within the expression 'repeal' in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Repeals may take any form and so long as a statute or part of it is obliterated, such obliteration would be covered by the expression 'repeal' in Section 6 of the Ge…

Mr. Rithesh Saliayan vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the following:

WP/14186/2016HC Karnataka06 Apr 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

…sions of the new law and the mere absence of a saving clause is by itself not material. (iv) The case of Fibre Boards Private Limited, Bangalore -vs- Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [(2015) 10 SCC 333] wherein it is held that the repeal can be by express omission. An implied repeal of a statute would fall within the expression 'repeal' in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Repeals may take any form and so long as a statute or part of it is obliterated, such obliteration would be covered by the expression 'repeal' in Section 6 of the Ge…

Fiber Boards (P) Ltd., Bangalore v. Commissiioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (10 SCC 333) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax