Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 11, Section 113, Section 115BB, Section 115BBJ, Section 12.

Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association

Q: How many judgments cite Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association?

53 judgments on BharatTax cite Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association (7 SCC 396), spanning 2006 to 2025.

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.

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 11 Section 113 Section 115BB Section 115BBJ Section 12 Section 12A Section 12AA

Issues it is cited on

chief commissioner commissioner (appeals)speaking order assistant commissioner person opportunity of being heard india section 11 nfac section 25 section 250 interest

Judgments citing Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6470/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2008-09

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…

Commissioner of Income Tax (C)-I vs. Shri Suresh Nanda

The appeals are dismissed but without any order as to costs

ITA/29/2016HC Delhi22 Jan 2016

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

…a Ltd. (x) AIR 2010 SC 972 M/s.Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Company Vs. Union of India (xi) (1975) Vol.2 LLOYD‟S LAW REPORTS 402 Exormisis Shipping S.A. Vs. Oonso, Democratic Peoples‟ Republic of Korea & Korean Foreign Transpiration Corporation (xii) (2003) 7 SCC 396 State of UP Vs. Allied constructions (xiii) (2004) 5 SCC 314 Sathyanarayana Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs. T.N.Water Supply & Drainage Board (xiv) (2013) 3 SCC 747 P.Radhakrishna Murthy Vs. National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. (xv) (2003) 12 SCC 144 Seth Mohanlal Hiralal Vs. State of M.P. (xvi) AIR 2001 SC 2062 M/s.Sikkim Subba Associates…

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

…IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri Mahavir Singh,Judicial Member, and Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 1680 / 2012 – Asst Year 2003-04 ITA No. 1681 / 2012 – Asst Year 2004-05 ITA No. 1682 / 2012 – Asst Year 2005-06 ITA No. 1683 / 2012 – Asst Year 2006-07 ITA No. 1684 / 2012 – Asst Year 2007-08 ITA No. 1685 / 2012 – Asst Year 2008-09 Sree Sree Ramkrishna Samity Vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-2, Siliguri PAN: AACAS 9103M (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant/Assessee: Shri Ananda Sen, Advocate, ld.AR For the Respondent/Department: Dr. Adhir kr. Bar, CIT, ld.DR Date o…

M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs. Union of India

WP/10559/2015HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

Section 105Section 35F

…ovision by a new provision. Substitution combines both repeal and fresh enactment. Thus, when an existing provision is substituted by a fresh enactment, it is a case of express repeal. c) In Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association [(2005)7 SCC 396], the question that fell for the consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as to what would be the effect of subsequent notification, ‘substituting’ the list of places specified in the original notification. The Hon’ble Court in its judgment at paragraph 15, considered the word substitute and observed thus : -: 87 :- “15. Th…

Exora Business Parks Private Limited vs. Union of India

WP/54018/2014HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

Section 105Section 35F

Prestige Garden Constructions Private Limited vs. Union of India

WP/54017/2014HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

Section 105Section 35F

M/S Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd vs. Union of India

WP/21492/2015HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

Section 105Section 35F

Commr.of Income Tax-I, New Delhi vs. Vatika Township P.Ltd

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

C.A. No.-008750-008750 - 2014Supreme Court15 Sept 2014

Section 113Section 132Section 154Section 158B

…ent of India & Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association5, 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, 5 (2005) 7 SCC 396 Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 36 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 37 JUDGMENT to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.6 It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in…

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. New Bombay Goods Transport

ITTA/249/2013HC Telangana11 Jul 2013

Commisioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited

ITTA/133/2013HC Telangana28 Jun 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

The appeal is dismissed

ITTA/215/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 100Section 158(3)

…ct thereto. For the said purpose, the general scope of the statute is relevant. Every law that takes away a right vested under the existing law is retrospective in nature. [See Govt. of India & Ors. vs. Indian Tobacco Association, (2005) 7 SCC 396.] "The cardinal principle is that statutes must always be interpreted prospectively, unless the language of the statutes makes them retrospective, either expressly or by necessary implication. Penal statutes which create new offences are always prospective, but penal statutes which create disabilities, though ordinarily…

M/S. O.N.G.C. Ltd vs. Commnr. of Customs, Mumbai

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-001882-001882 - 2004Supreme Court24 Aug 2006

For Respondent: Commnr. Of Customs, Mumbai

Section 28A

…ner. [See Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Tullow India Operations Ltd., (2005) 13 SCC 789, [See Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 272, Government of India and Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association, (2005) 7 SCC 396, Commnr. Of Central Excise, Raipur v. Hira Cement, JT 2006 (2) SC 369. and P.R. Prabhakar v. Commnr. Of Income Tax, Coimbatore, 2006 (7) SCALE 191] If, thus, the Appellant was entitled to the same, it should not be denied the benefits thereof. It is directed accordingly. We, therefore, do not agree with the findings of the learned Commissi…

P.R. Prabhakar vs. Commnr. of Income Tax, Coimbatore

C.A. No.-000877-000877 - 2006Supreme Court18 Jul 2006

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore

Section 80H

…assessee but once it is found that the same is applicable, the same are required to be interpreted liberally. [See Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., [2005] 4 SCC 272, Government of India and Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association, [2005] 7 SCC 396 and Commr. of Central Excise, Raipur v. Hira Cement, JT, (2006) 2 SC 369.] It is also trite law that an exemption is to be granted unless it is expressly taken away. [See Adityapur Industril Area Development Authority v. Union of India and Ors., (2006) 5 SCALE 321] The expression "income arising out of business of export" brings within its sweep…