Govind Das v. CIT

1 SCC 906Supreme Court of India1976#6019 most cited
19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 115BBESection 12Section 12ASection 12AASection 139(4)Section 139(4A)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(9)section 69dsection 113section 64clarificatory amendmentsection 17section 92bsection 69bsection 92international transactionsection 115bbsection 115b

Judgments citing Govind Das v. CIT

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Sri N. Suresh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

…necessary implication retrospective. (See Controller of Estate Duty Gujarat-I v. M.A. Merchant 1989 Supp (1) SCC 499. We would also like to reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in the case of Govinddas v. Income-tax O ficer [1976] 1 SCC 906, while holding Section 171 (6) of the Income- Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962, the Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bangalore Page 22 of 25 date on which the Income Tax Act came into force: "11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decis…

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…Township (P) Ltd (Supra). Accordingly, the amended 23 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur provision of Section 115 BBE should apply on incomes accruing after the law having received assent of the President. 4.33. In the case of Govind Das (1976) 1 SCC 906 (SC), following observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding Section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1-4-1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force:- “…11. Now it is a well-settled Rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial de…

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 155/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132(1)

…d by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vatika Township (P) Ltd (Supra). Accordingly, the amended provision of Section 115 BBE should apply on incomes accruing after the law having received assent of the President. C.9. In the case of Govind Das(1976) 1 SCC 906 (SC), following observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding Section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1-4-1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force:- “…11. Now it is a well-settled Rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial de…

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

ITA 154/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132(1)

…d by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vatika Township (P) Ltd (Supra). Accordingly, the amended provision of Section 115 BBE should apply on incomes accruing after the law having received assent of the President. C.9. In the case of Govind Das(1976) 1 SCC 906 (SC), following observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding Section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1-4-1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force:- “…11. Now it is a well-settled Rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial de…

NEW SKIES SATELLITES B. V ,HARYANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(2) INT. TAXATION , DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 436/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 244ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

…the then existing law." 35. This presumption against retrospectivity stems from an indispensible need for each rule of law to answer to the principle of fairness. L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Company (2015) 1 SCC 1 [1976] 1 SCC 906 [1962] 1 SCR ITA 473/2012, 474/2012, 500/2012 & 244/2014 Page 26 Ltd.29. This presumption can be displaced in either of two situations, (i) where the words of the amendment specifically indicate the retroactivity of the law or (ii) in the case of declaratory or clarificatory amendments. Clarificatory amendments are a special class of amendments the…

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/214/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021
For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…ITA 213-215/2020 Page 1 of 33 $-J-5, 6 & 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement reserved on: 09.04.2021 Judgement pronounced on: 05.07.2021 + ITA 213/2020 + ITA 214/2020 + ITA 215/2020 COFORGE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Advocates. versus ACIT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shailender Singh, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH RAJIV SHAKDHER, J: Table of Contents Background…

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/215/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021
For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…ITA 213-215/2020 Page 1 of 33 $-J-5, 6 & 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement reserved on: 09.04.2021 Judgement pronounced on: 05.07.2021 + ITA 213/2020 + ITA 214/2020 + ITA 215/2020 COFORGE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Advocates. versus ACIT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shailender Singh, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH RAJIV SHAKDHER, J: Table of Contents Background…

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/213/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021
For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…ITA 213-215/2020 Page 1 of 33 $-J-5, 6 & 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement reserved on: 09.04.2021 Judgement pronounced on: 05.07.2021 + ITA 213/2020 + ITA 214/2020 + ITA 215/2020 COFORGE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Advocates. versus ACIT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shailender Singh, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH RAJIV SHAKDHER, J: Table of Contents Background…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/601/2019HC Karnataka05 Mar 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 54F

…in India in order to claim exemption under Section 54F(1) of the Act has been incorporated w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 7. Before proceeding further, we may advert to certain well settled legal principles. The Supreme Court in 'GOVIND DAS vs. I.T.O', (1976) 1 SCC 906 held that unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated by Halsbury…

GEETHA PANDIT RAO AND ANR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/226494/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…) SCC 191, thus: “35. Mr Sachar relies on Thakur Gokulchand v. Parvin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231, Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury, AIR 1957 SC 540, Jose Da Costa v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim, (1976) 2 SCC 917, Govind Das v. ITO, (1976) 1 SCC 906, Henshall v. Porter, (1923) 2 KBD 193, United Provinces v. Mst. Atiga Begum, AIR 1941 FC 16, in support of his submission that the Amendment Act was not made retrospective by the legislature either expressly or by necessary implication as the Act itself expressly provided that it shall be deemed to have come into force on January 23, 1973; a…

SMT GEETHA PANDIT RAO vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/7717/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…) SCC 191, thus: “35. Mr Sachar relies on Thakur Gokulchand v. Parvin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231, Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury, AIR 1957 SC 540, Jose Da Costa v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim, (1976) 2 SCC 917, Govind Das v. ITO, (1976) 1 SCC 906, Henshall v. Porter, (1923) 2 KBD 193, United Provinces v. Mst. Atiga Begum, AIR 1941 FC 16, in support of his submission that the Amendment Act was not made retrospective by the legislature either expressly or by necessary implication as the Act itself expressly provided that it shall be deemed to have come into force on January 23, 1973; a…

COMMISSIONER OF vs. MR VINAY MISHRA

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

ITA/75/2013HC Karnataka31 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54(1)Section 54F

…use in India in order to claim exemption under Section 54F(1) of the Act has been incorporated w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 7. Before proceeding further, we may advert to certain well settled legal principles. The Supreme Court in ‘GOVIND DAS vs. I.T.O’, (1976) 1 SCC 906 held that unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new 10 liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated by Halsbury…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

ITA 114/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211(2)Section 80I

…ecessary implication retrospective. (See Controller of Estate Duty Gujarat-I v. M.A. Merchant 1989 Supp (1) SCC 499. We would also like to reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in the case of Govinddas v. Income- tax Officer (1976) 1 SCC 906, while holding Section 171 (6) of the Income- Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force: "11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so p…

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1394/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.L. Sowmya Achar, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 211Section 234Section 80I

…ecessary implication retrospective. (See Controller of Estate Duty Gujarat-I v. M.A. Merchant 1989 Supp (1) SCC 499. We would also like to reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in the case of Govinddas v. Income- tax Officer (1976) 1 SCC 906, while holding Section 171 (6) of the Page 32 of 48 Income- Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force: "11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3593/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri F V Irani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri TS Shivkumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 9Section 9(1)

…f legislation is presumed not to be intended to have retrospective operation. 34. Most recently in CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) ; [2015] 1 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench, while quoting Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 (SC) ; [1976] 1 SCC 906 and CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC) ; [1962] 1 SCR 788 held as follows (page 486 of 367 ITR) : "Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be inter preted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a ret rospective operation.…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. NEW SKIES SATELLITE BV

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

ITA/473/2012HC Delhi08 Feb 2016

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260ASection 9(1)(vi)

…tems from an indispensible need for each rule of law to answer to the principle of fairness. L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Company 26 (2015) 1 SCC 1 27 [1976] 1 SCC 906 28 [1962] 1 SCR ITA 473/2012, 474/2012, 500/2012 & 244/2014 Page 27 Ltd.29. This presumption can be displaced in either of two situations, (i) where the words of the amendment specifically indicate the retroactivity of the law or (ii) in the case of declaratory or clarificatory amendments. Clarificatory amendments are a special class…

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

…necessary implication retrospective. (See Controller of Estate Duty Gujarat-I v. M.A. Merchant 1989 Supp (1) SCC 499. We would also like to reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in the case of Govinddasv. Income-tax Officer (1976) 1 SCC 906, while holding Section 171 (6) of the Income- Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force: “11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so p…

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

…ssment year prior to 1st April, 1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force: “11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, 9 1989 Supp (1) SCC 499 10 (1976) 1 SCC 906 Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 40 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 41 JUDGMENT unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new…

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

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

ITTA/473/2012HC Telangana09 Jul 2013
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260ASection 9(1)(vi)

…tems from an indispensible need for each rule of law to answer to the principle of fairness. L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Company 26 (2015) 1 SCC 1 27 [1976] 1 SCC 906 28 [1962] 1 SCR ITA 473/2012, 474/2012, 500/2012 & 244/2014 Page 27 Ltd.29. This presumption can be displaced in either of two situations, (i) where the words of the amendment specifically indicate the retroactivity of the law or (ii) in the case of declaratory or clarificatory amendments. Clarificatory amendments are a special class…