Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association

7 SCC 396Reported decision2005#2183 most cited

What is Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association authority for?

Beneficial statutes, especially procedural provisions, can be given retrospective effect if they are enacted for the benefit of the community as a whole, applying the doctrine of fairness, even without an explicit retrospective provision.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association · 7 SCC 396 · retrospective application of law · beneficial statutes · procedural provisions · doctrine of fairness · statutory interpretation · Income Tax Act · Section 143(3) · Section 11

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 11Section 113Section 115BBSection 115BBJSection 12Section 12ASection 12AA

Issues it is cited on

chief commissionercommissioner (appeals)speaking orderassistant commissionerpersonopportunity of being heardindiasection 11nfacsection 25section 250interest

Judgments citing Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Namita Chhabra

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

ITA/14/2021HC Rajasthan06 May 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

Section 107

…ision of electricity to the residents of township is not the integral part of the business and as such, the reversal of ITC is justified. He 5 2024:GUJHC:62022-DB 6 2024:GUJHC:71361:DB 7 2022 (65) GSTL 263 (AP) 8 (1985) 1 SCC 591 9 (1987) 1 SCC 695 10 (2005) 7 SCC 396 Page 12 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Maruti Suzuki Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III11 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Company Limited12 to buttress his submission that reversal of cr…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Namita Chhabra

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

ITA/15/2021HC Rajasthan06 May 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

Section 107

…ision of electricity to the residents of township is not the integral part of the business and as such, the reversal of ITC is justified. He 5 2024:GUJHC:62022-DB 6 2024:GUJHC:71361:DB 7 2022 (65) GSTL 263 (AP) 8 (1985) 1 SCC 591 9 (1987) 1 SCC 695 10 (2005) 7 SCC 396 Page 12 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Maruti Suzuki Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III11 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Company Limited12 to buttress his submission that reversal of cr…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Samarpan Synthetics Pvt Ltd

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

ITA/17/2021HC Rajasthan04 Mar 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

Section 107

…ision of electricity to the residents of township is not the integral part of the business and as such, the reversal of ITC is justified. He 5 2024:GUJHC:62022-DB 6 2024:GUJHC:71361:DB 7 2022 (65) GSTL 263 (AP) 8 (1985) 1 SCC 591 9 (1987) 1 SCC 695 10 (2005) 7 SCC 396 Page 12 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Maruti Suzuki Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III11 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Company Limited12 to buttress his submission that reversal of cr…

Suchirindia Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

ITTA/15/2021HC Telangana30 Apr 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 107

…ision of electricity to the residents of township is not the integral part of the business and as such, the reversal of ITC is justified. He 5 2024:GUJHC:62022-DB 6 2024:GUJHC:71361:DB 7 2022 (65) GSTL 263 (AP) 8 (1985) 1 SCC 591 9 (1987) 1 SCC 695 10 (2005) 7 SCC 396 Page 12 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Maruti Suzuki Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III11 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Company Limited12 to buttress his submission that reversal of cr…

The Director of Income-Tax vs. M/S Autodesk Asia Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/133/2013HC Karnataka15 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 195(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 90

…s in existence shall apply for the entire 6 fiscal year as defined in DTAA. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in ‘GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. INDIAN TOBACCO ASSOCIATION’, (2005) 7 SCC 396. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The singular issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is with regard to the rate of tax under the DTAA for Assessment Year 2006-07. Before proceeding further, we may advert to well settled rules of Interpretation with…

West Bengal Trade Promotion Organisation Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward - 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 36/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Dutta, CA, Shri Saurabh Bagaria, Advocate & Shri RiteshFor Respondent: Shri I. Jamir, CIT, Sr. DR & Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 25

…a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India vs Indian Tobacco Association reported in (2005) 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 6 SCC 289. It was held that wh…

NA vs. Ari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, Navsari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 272/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.272/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, V The Income Tax Officer, Agiary Street, Malesar, Navsari S Exemption Ward, Surat. Taluka, Navsari – 396 445. . [Pan: Aaatn 6124 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri H.R.Vepari – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Vaishav – Cit - Dr

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12A

…it appears to have been the legislators' object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect". 22. In 'Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association, [2005] 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be a relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operations. 23. In 'Vijay v. State of Maharashtra', [2006] 6 SCC 286, the Hon'ble Supreme Court went to the extent of holding that where a law is enacted for the benefit of the community as a whole,…

D.C.I.T., Cental Circle - 3(3) Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Shri Biswanath Garodia, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of assessee are also dismissed being academic in nature

ITA 1672/KOL/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjunlalsaini, Am]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 153A

…be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association [2005] 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra [2006] 6 SCC 286. It was held that where a law is…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Exemptions, Bangalore vs. M/S Centre Fpr Cellular and Molecular Platforms, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Centre For Cellular & Molecular Platforms, The Income Tax Officer (E), Post Bag No. 6505, Ward -1 , Vs. G.K.V.K. P.O. Bangalore. Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560 065. Pan: Aadcc8572D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ujjwal Kumar, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, The Income Tax Officer (E), Post bag no. 6505, Ward -1 , Vs. G.K.V.K. P.O. Bangalore. Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560 065. PAN: AADCC8572D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 14.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the rev…

Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed with above direction

ITA 1847/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92C

…n'ble Supreme Court has observed that "This (the foregoing analysis) exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective". Their Lordships then further observed that, "In Government of India & Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association (2005) 7 SCC 396 = 2005- TIOL-109-SC-CUS the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) the context of it to be given a retrospective operation" and that "The same doctrine of fairness, to hol…

Noble Resource & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed with above direction

ITA 1827/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92C

…n'ble Supreme Court has observed that "This (the foregoing analysis) exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective". Their Lordships then further observed that, "In Government of India & Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association (2005) 7 SCC 396 = 2005- TIOL-109-SC-CUS the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) the context of it to be given a retrospective operation" and that "The same doctrine of fairness, to hol…

M/S. Adicon Builders & Promoters Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 538/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40

…uch a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India and Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association (2005) 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 286 It was held that where…

DCIT(E), Circle-2, Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal Trade Promotion Org., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 156/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 148Section 25

…a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India vs Indian Tobacco Association reported in (2005) 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 6 SCC 289. It was held that wh…

Harry Inder Dhaul, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3499/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Harry Inder Dhaul Addl. Cit Range-12(2) 22, Rakhi Mahal, D.V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Road, Road, New Marine Churchgate, Lines Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Abapd1065B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.C. Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. S.C. Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR
Section 143(3)Section 52(2)(vii)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association [2005] 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be Shri Harry Inder Dhaul 14 given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra [2006] 6 SCC 286. It wa…

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

…a purposive construction, A.Yrs.2006-07 & 2007-08 would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association reported in (2005) 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 6 SCC 289. It was held that wh…

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

…a purposive construction, A.Yrs.2006-07 & 2007-08 would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association reported in (2005) 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 6 SCC 289. It was held that wh…

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

…a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India vs Indian Tobacco Association reported in (2005) 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 6 SCC 289. It was held that wh…

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)

…be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association [2005] 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra [2006] 6 SCC 286. It was held that where a law is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Noble Resource and Trading India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3155/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., 1A-D, Circle-13(1), Room No. 406, Vandana Building, Vs. C.R. Building, Ip Estate, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Acit (Osd), Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Cit-V, Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ito, Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Ward-13(3), Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi C.R. Building, Pan:Aaaca0443N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 92

…n‟ble Supreme Court has observed that “This (the foregoing analysis) exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective”. Their Lordships then further observed that, “In Government of India & Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association (2005) 7 SCC 396 the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation” and that “The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 286. It was held tha…

Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT (OSD), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3132/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., 1A-D, Circle-13(1), Room No. 406, Vandana Building, Vs. C.R. Building, Ip Estate, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Acit (Osd), Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Cit-V, Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ito, Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Ward-13(3), Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi C.R. Building, Pan:Aaaca0443N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 92

…n‟ble Supreme Court has observed that “This (the foregoing analysis) exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective”. Their Lordships then further observed that, “In Government of India & Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association (2005) 7 SCC 396 the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation” and that “The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 286. It was held tha…

Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association (7 SCC 396) — Cited in 53 Judgments | BharatTax