Govind Das v. ITO

103 ITR 123Supreme Court of India1976#1379 most cited

What is Govind Das v. ITO authority for?

Taxing provisions imposing new liabilities or affecting substantive rights are presumed to operate prospectively unless the statute expressly or necessarily implies retrospective application. Retrospective operation is generally not given if it impairs existing rights, creates new obligations, or imposes new liabilities, except for procedural matters.

83

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Govind Das v. ITO · 103 ITR 123 · prospective operation · retrospective application · statutory interpretation · taxing provisions · new liability · fiscal amendments · Section 171(6) · Income Tax Act

Sections most often in play

Section 1894Section 1961Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(5)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 14

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 23(1a)section 104section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 194lakeyman insurancesection 160section 23(2)

Judgments citing Govind Das v. ITO

Yamuna Khadar Shiksha Samiti, Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6259/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…endment by way of Finance Act, 2010 in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was the issue, which was held to be charificatory and hence retrospective in nature. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder pointed out that Memo explaining the Finance Bill clearly says that the amendment was w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and it was proposed to amend the provisions of section 200A of the Act. He further stated that under the provisions of section 45 of the Act, where the cost of acquisition…

Yamuna Khadar Shiksha Samiti, Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6258/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…endment by way of Finance Act, 2010 in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was the issue, which was held to be charificatory and hence retrospective in nature. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder pointed out that Memo explaining the Finance Bill clearly says that the amendment was w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and it was proposed to amend the provisions of section 200A of the Act. He further stated that under the provisions of section 45 of the Act, where the cost of acquisition…

Yamuna Khadar Shiksha Samiti, Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6257/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…endment by way of Finance Act, 2010 in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was the issue, which was held to be charificatory and hence retrospective in nature. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder pointed out that Memo explaining the Finance Bill clearly says that the amendment was w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and it was proposed to amend the provisions of section 200A of the Act. He further stated that under the provisions of section 45 of the Act, where the cost of acquisition…

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

…is one of validation of taxing statute struck­down by courts for certain defects; the period of such retroactivity, and the decree and extent of any unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period etc." 18. In Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 the Supreme Court held that Section 171 (6) of the Income Tax Act was prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962, the date on which the Act came into force and observed that: "11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a st…

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…

Sbi Capital Markets Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7271/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Sbi Capital Markets Limited Asst. Cit, Ltu, 29Th Floor Centre-I, 202, Maker Tower E, Cuff Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Vs. World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 154Section 234C

…Court has expounded as under: (head notes only) Every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by neces- sary implication made to have retrospective operation. There is a presumption of prospectivity of a statute. GOVINDDAS v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 (SC) and CIT v. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) relied on. Machinery provisions of a taxing statute have to give effect to its manifest purposes. But whether the machinery provision is prospective or retrospective depends on the content and nature of the statutory scheme. Section 14A was first inserted in the Income-tax Act, 196…

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)

…ogmatically framed, the rule is no more than a presumption, and thus could be displaced by out weighing factors. *** *** *** *** 35. We would also like to reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in the case of Govinddas v. ITO [1978] 103 ITR 123, 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…

Fundtech India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 5252/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B. R. Baskaran & Amarjit Singh]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234DSection 250Section 27l(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)

…onsequent to addition of Explanation-2 by Finance Act, 2012 which is declaratory of the law there can be no manner of doubt that S. 234D is to be applied retrospectively even to the period prior to A.Y. 2004-05. In view of judgment in case of Govinddas v. ITO 103 ITR 123, explanation 2 to S. 234D does not restrict its application to A.Y. 2003-04 but is applicable to all assessment years prior to 1.6.2003. A statute could be retrospective in operation ITA. NO. 5252/M/2015 5638/M/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 being expressly stated on by necessary implication. Therefore, order of tribunal is reversed. Appeal allowed…

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…

M/S. Samikaran Learning Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4051/DEL/2016[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

…mendment by way of Finance Act, 2010 in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was the issue, which was held to be charificatory and hence retrospective in nature. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder pointed out that Memo explaining the Finance Bill clearly says that the amendment was w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and it was proposed to amend the provisions of section 200A of the Act. He further stated that under the provisions of section 45 of the Act, where the cost of acquisition…

M/S. Samikaran Learning Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4050/DEL/2016[2015-16 (F.Y. 2014-15)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

…mendment by way of Finance Act, 2010 in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was the issue, which was held to be charificatory and hence retrospective in nature. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder pointed out that Memo explaining the Finance Bill clearly says that the amendment was w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and it was proposed to amend the provisions of section 200A of the Act. He further stated that under the provisions of section 45 of the Act, where the cost of acquisition…

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)

…2010-11 stated, a piece of 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…

Bhavyesh P. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5269/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Kailash Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 73(4)

…on for consideration as to whether the condition of eight years as applicable to A.Y. 2001-02 will be applicable in the year under consideration or the amended provision relating to four years will be applicable in this case. In the case of Govinddas & Others 103 ITR 123, the Supreme Court held that:- "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 provided 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 Bhavyesh…

DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4826/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2000-2001

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…ss there is necessary implication, retrospective operation should not be given to the statute so as to affect, alter or destroy any right already acquired. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govinddas v ITO, 103 ITR 123 (SC)). Since the assessee was not obliged to maintain the special reserve created upto AY 1997-98 and was entitled to freely use such reserve, provisions ofsec.41(4A) would not be applicable to the sum withdrawn from the special reserve created upto AY 1998-99. Further we find that, Coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case LIC Housing Fina…

Icici Bank Ltd vs. DCIT Range 3(1)

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4657/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…ss there is necessary implication, retrospective operation should not be given to the statute so as to affect, alter or destroy any right already acquired. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govinddas v ITO, 103 ITR 123 (SC)). Since the assessee was not obliged to maintain the special reserve created upto AY 1997-98 and was entitled to freely use such reserve, provisions ofsec.41(4A) would not be applicable to the sum withdrawn from the special reserve created upto AY 1998-99. Further we find that, Coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case LIC Housing Fina…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Rahil Agencies, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4413/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 4413/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2011-12) ACIT Central Circle-13 Vs. M/s. Rahil Agencies Room No. 1103 Shop No. G-3 11th Floor, Old CGO Anand Sagar Building Building Annex 14, Guzdar Street M.K. Road Chira Bazar Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 002. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AACFR2591P Assessee by Shri Rakesh Joshi Department by Shri B.S. Bist Date of Hearing 25.7.2016 Date of Pronouncement 23.11.2016 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Asian Star Diamonds Iternational P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4412/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘ए’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) ACIT, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/s ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11th Floor Old CGO 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AABFV 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. 'A' Star Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4411/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘ए’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) ACIT, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/s ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11th Floor Old CGO 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AABFV 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-…

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)

…The decision of Catholic Syrian Bank is not applicable as per Explanation 2 to Sec. 36(i)(vii) of the Act as effective from Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and there cannot be retrospective amendment. The Supreme Court in the case of Govinda Das vs. ITO 103 ITR 123 it was a settled 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.…

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…