IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. DCIT (SC)

271 ITR 322Supreme Court of India2004#9131 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2019.

Judgments citing IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. DCIT (SC)

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 301/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

…ITR 295) came only 24 I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 in the October 2013, which pertains to the financial year 2013-14 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. Further, the AO relied on the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Gem Granites Vs CIT ( 271 ITR 322) wherein it was held that "No retrospectivity unless expressly stated or clearly implied. On perusal of the case cited by the assessee, the Supreme Court has not given any such direction and the above decision pronounced will apply retrospectively”. The Assessing Officer also relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Marl…

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 303/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

…ITR 295) came only 24 I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 in the October 2013, which pertains to the financial year 2013-14 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. Further, the AO relied on the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Gem Granites Vs CIT ( 271 ITR 322) wherein it was held that "No retrospectivity unless expressly stated or clearly implied. On perusal of the case cited by the assessee, the Supreme Court has not given any such direction and the above decision pronounced will apply retrospectively”. The Assessing Officer also relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Marl…

R.SMITHA SHARMA REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATANAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 74/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…said explanation clarifies the position and leaves no scope, whatsoever, for any confusion or doubt.” The Ld.CIT(A) has taken support of Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. DCIT (SC) 266 ITR 521 and Gem Granites Vs. CIT (SC) 271 ITR 322 and accordingly upheld the issue of notice u/s 148. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that in this case, the property was purchased by the Rep.Assessee by document bearing No.2174/2006 dated 04.05.2006 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. The AO passed…

R.MANI KUMAR REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 73/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…said explanation clarifies the position and leaves no scope, whatsoever, for any confusion or doubt.” The Ld.CIT(A) has taken support of Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. DCIT (SC) 266 ITR 521 and Gem Granites Vs. CIT (SC) 271 ITR 322 and accordingly upheld the issue of notice u/s 148. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that in this case, the property was purchased by the Rep.Assessee by document bearing No.2174/2006 dated 04.05.2006 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. The AO passed…

LALITHA D.V.RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 72/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…said explanation clarifies the position and leaves no scope, whatsoever, for any confusion or doubt.” The Ld.CIT(A) has taken support of Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. DCIT (SC) 266 ITR 521 and Gem Granites Vs. CIT (SC) 271 ITR 322 and accordingly upheld the issue of notice u/s 148. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that in this case, the property was purchased by the Rep.Assessee by document bearing No.2174/2006 dated 04.05.2006 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. The AO passed…

V.UJAVALA RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 71/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…said explanation clarifies the position and leaves no scope, whatsoever, for any confusion or doubt.” The Ld.CIT(A) has taken support of Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. DCIT (SC) 266 ITR 521 and Gem Granites Vs. CIT (SC) 271 ITR 322 and accordingly upheld the issue of notice u/s 148. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that in this case, the property was purchased by the Rep.Assessee by document bearing No.2174/2006 dated 04.05.2006 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. The AO passed…

V.GAUTAM RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 70/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…said explanation clarifies the position and leaves no scope, whatsoever, for any confusion or doubt.” The Ld.CIT(A) has taken support of Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. DCIT (SC) 266 ITR 521 and Gem Granites Vs. CIT (SC) 271 ITR 322 and accordingly upheld the issue of notice u/s 148. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that in this case, the property was purchased by the Rep.Assessee by document bearing No.2174/2006 dated 04.05.2006 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. The AO passed…

V.PRATIMA RAO, REPRESENTED BY DR. P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 69/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…said explanation clarifies the position and leaves no scope, whatsoever, for any confusion or doubt.” The Ld.CIT(A) has taken support of Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. DCIT (SC) 266 ITR 521 and Gem Granites Vs. CIT (SC) 271 ITR 322 and accordingly upheld the issue of notice u/s 148. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that in this case, the property was purchased by the Rep.Assessee by document bearing No.2174/2006 dated 04.05.2006 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. The AO passed…

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

…isions wherein it has been held that a provision imposing liability is governed by the normal presumption that is not retrospective: - S.S.Gadgil vs. Lal and Co. (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC) - K.M.Sharma vs. ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) - Gem Granites vs. CIT (2004) 271 ITR 322 (SC) - Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 310 (SC). 22.28 The fundamental principle reiterated in the aforesaid decision is lexprospicit non respicit: i.e., laws look forward and not backward. No section can be interpreted retrospectively unless it is mentioned in the section itself. 22.29 Specific reliance in this rega…

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…osing liability is governed by the normal presumption that is not retrospective. Reference made to the decisions in: - i. S.S. Gadgil, ITO, Bombay v. Lal & Co., 53 ITR 231 (SC), ii. K.M. Sharma v. ITO, 254 ITR 772 (SC), iii. Gem Granites v. CIT , 271 ITR 322 (SC), iv. Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. & Ors. v. CIT, 279 ITR 310 (SC). There is nothing in the language of Section 271(1)(c) as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 to suggest that the amendment is retrospective. The amendment in clause (iii) and simultaneously in Explanation 4(a) carried out enlarges the scope o…

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…osing liability is governed by the normal presumption that is not retrospective. Reference made to the decisions in: - i. S.S. Gadgil, ITO, Bombay v. Lal & Co., 53 ITR 231 (SC), ii. K.M. Sharma v. ITO, 254 ITR 772 (SC), iii. Gem Granites v. CIT , 271 ITR 322 (SC), iv. Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. & Ors. v. CIT, 279 ITR 310 (SC). There is nothing in the language of Section 271(1)(c) as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 to suggest that the amendment is retrospective. The amendment in clause (iii) and simultaneously in Explanation 4(a) carried out enlarges the scope o…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WELCOME SEEDS LTD.

ITA/183/2001HC Delhi29 Jul 2005

…106 ITR 965 6U, Commissioner Of fncome-tax, West Bengal I v. Vegetable Products Ltd: 88 ITR 192 (SC), K' M' Sharma v. Income-tox Officer: 254 ITR 772, Brii Mohan v. Commissioner Of fncome-tsx, New Delhi: 120 ITR 7, Gem Granites v. Commissioner Of fncome' tax: 271 ITR 322, CCE, Coimbatore v. Elsi Eauioments Ltd: 2001 (128) ELT 52 (SC), B. N. Sharma v. Commissioner Of Income Tax: 226 ITR 442 (SC). However, we need not be drawn into this discussion as we have anived at our conclusions indicated above without considering these amendments. ITA 205.0Ietc Page No. 36 of 37 \... tr 18. Hence, answering question 1 in fa…