K.M. Sharma v. ITO

254 ITR 772Supreme Court of India2002#754 most cited

What is K.M. Sharma v. ITO authority for?

Where the period of limitation for issuing a notice under section 148 has expired before an amendment to the law takes effect, the amended provision, if not expressly retrospective, cannot revive the expired period of limitation to reopen concluded proceedings.

136

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.M. Sharma v. ITO · Section 148 · Section 149 · limitation · revival of expired limitation · retrospective amendment · prospective amendment · certainty and finality

Also reported as

122 Taxmann 426

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69ASection 149Section 150Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 150(1)section 158basection 150section 150(2)unexplained jewellerysection 18section 70section 33(4)

Judgments citing K.M. Sharma v. ITO

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1894/AHD/2019[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…mendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324 (Del): 8. DCIT v. Smt. Indira D. Thakkar - (2022) 138 taxmann.com 428 (Mum); 9. DCIT v. Smt. Deval D. Thakkar -…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

…on 11th August 2016. Thus, the same cannot be reopened by virtue of the provisions of sub section (2) of section 150 of the Act. In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO reported in 254 ITR 772. The relevant observation of Hon’ble SC bench is extracted as under: On a combined reading of sub-section (1) as amended with effect from 1-4-1989 and sub- section (2) of section150, a fair and just interpretation would be that the authority under the Act has been empowered only to reopen assessments, which have not already been closed and attain…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

…on 11th August 2016. Thus, the same cannot be reopened by virtue of the provisions of sub section (2) of section 150 of the Act. In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO reported in 254 ITR 772. The relevant observation of Hon’ble SC bench is extracted as under: On a combined reading of sub-section (1) as amended with effect from 1-4-1989 and sub- section (2) of section150, a fair and just interpretation would be that the authority under the Act has been empowered only to reopen assessments, which have not already been closed and attain…

Punjab National Bank, Ambala vs. ITO TDS, Karnal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2117/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Punjab National Bank Vs. Ito Ambala, Haryana -134003 Tds Pan No.Aaacp01656G Karnal (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lalit Garg, Fca Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated 26.05.2023 By Nfac, Delhi Pertaining To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) Under Section 250 Of The Act Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts As It Is Time Barred As Per Limitation Given Under Section 201(3).

Section 2Section 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 250

…ion made available on the statute vide a subsequent amendment, unless the amended provision is clearly given a retrospective applicability. Our/aforesaid observation is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO, 254 ITR 772 (SC). In its aforesaid order, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope and gamut of the amendment to sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, had observed, that if it was to be held that the amendment to sub- section (1) of Section 149 would enable the authorities to reopen the assessments which had already attained finality due to b…

M/S Citi Plaza, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 356/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ion 147 of the Act has been issued to initiate proceeding under section 147 within the period prescribed under section 149 read with section 150 of the Act. We are fortified in our view by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. M. Sharma v. ITO [2002] 254 ITR 772 wherein the Apex Court had considered the amendment made in sub-section (1) of section 150 of the Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1-4-1989. The Apex Court has held as under:- "Section 149 of the Act prescribes a maximum period of four or seven years depending upon the quantum of tax as mentioned in the said sect…

Cantabil Retail India Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-73(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1476/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Cantabil Retail India Acit Ltd. B-16, Ground Floor, Vs Circle – 73 (1) Lawrence Road, Industrial New Delhi Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110035 Pan No.Aaack3901B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 194CSection 194ISection 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)(i)

…ion made available on the statute vide a subsequent amendment, unless the amended provision is clearly given a retrospective applicability. Our/aforesaid observation is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO, 254 ITR 772 (SC). In its aforesaid order, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope and gamut of the amendment to sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, had observed, that if it was to be held that the amendment to sub- section (1) of Section 149 would enable the authorities to reopen the assessments which had already attained finality due to b…

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suryakant C Suchak, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 965/MUM/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसुं. 965/भ ुं/2020 (यन.ि.1999-2000) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(4),Mumbai, Room No.1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ...... अऩीराथी/Appellant फनाभ Vs. Shri Suryakant C. Suchak, 231, Krishna, 32-A Cross, 7Th Block, Jaynagar, Bangalore – 560 070. ..... प्रयििादी/Respondent Pan:Apjps-8359-A अऩीराथी द्िाया/ Appellant By : Smt. Esther Ninghauvung Hanghal प्रयििादी द्िाया/Respondent By : Shri Dilip Thakkar स निाई की यिधथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2023 घोषणा की यिधथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai *In Short ‘The Cit(A)’+ Dated 26/11/2019, For Assessment Year 1999-2000. 2 2. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Smt. Esther Ninghauvung HanghalFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Thakkar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(c)Section 69

…empower the Assessing officer to reopen assessment which otherwise has become time barred under the pre-amended provisions. In the case of Braham Datt (supra), the Hon’ble High Court referred to the decision in the case of K.M. Sharma vs. Income Tax Officer, 254 ITR 772(SC) and held that amendment to section 149 by the Finance Act, 2012, that extends limitation for reopening assessment to sixteen years, could not be resorted for reopening proceedings concluded before amendment became effective. 9. The Revenue has placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dilip J. Thakkar (supra). Follo…

Sh. Joginder Singh S/O. Sh. Gurdial Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Bathinda

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 198/ASR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150Section 153(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 198/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Joginder Singh V. The Income Tax Officer, S/o Gurdial Singh Ward-2(1), Bathinda R/o #24095, Guru Ki Nagri, St. No. C-1, Bathinda [PAN: BZHPS 2914N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by : Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against t…

The ACIT-Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta, Rajkot

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 130/RJT/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta, Income-Tax, 7Th Floor, Mansrovar Central Circle-2, Apartment, Royal Park, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Agqpm 6495 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2020 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2004-05. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(c)Section 149(3)Section 250(6)

…the case of father and grandfather of the assessee, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Braham Dutt vs. ACIT, reported in 100 Taxmann.com 324 and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO, reported in (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC), had been followed. The learned CIT(A) thereafter noted that the facts in the present case were identical; and the assessment year being AY 2004-05, the limitation prescribed by the pre-amended provision of Section 149 of the Act being 6 years expired on 31.03.2011; that it was only subsequently that sub-clause (c) to Section 149(1) was brou…

DCIT Circle-76(1), New Delhi vs. Omaxe Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands

ITA 9282/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

…7. However, the penalty has been levied on 22.01.2018. This being the situation, the penalty is liable to be treated as time barred. The while coming to the aforesaid conclusion followed the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO 254 ITR 772 dated 11.04.2002, wherein it was held that: “Fiscal statute, more particularly a provision such as the present one regulating period of limitation must receive strict construction. The law of limitation is intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and to avoid exposure to risk of litigation to litigant for indefinite period on…

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Deval D Thakkar [Now Known As Smt Deval E Anthony], Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are 11

ITA 968/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 974/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Smt. Deval D. Thakkar (Now Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Known As Smt. Deval E Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Anthony) Point, Mumbai-400021. 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt8999F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Dilip Thakkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Dated 26.11.2019 For A.Y.1999-2000 & For Ay. 2004-05. 2. Both The Parties Agree That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, We Take The Appeal Of The Assessee For Ay. 1999-2000 As The Lead Case & The Decision Of Which Will Be Followed For Ay. 2004-05. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue For Ay. 1999-2000 Is As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dilip ThakkarFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

…even if made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not apply to the assessment for that year. The Hon‘ble High Court has relied upon the judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.M.Sharma vs. ITO 254 ITR 772 (SC) and S.S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co 53 ITR 231. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is reproduced below: “3. Search and seizure operation under Section 132 was carried out in the case of the Petitioner. During the course of search, his statement was recorded on 27.09.2011 under Section 132(4) of the Act. In the st…

Arun Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, C.C. 3, Jaipur

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

ITA 344/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…on following case laws. 1. CIT vs Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana, 362 ITR 673 (SC) 2.Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. vs PCIT, 423 ITR 281 (SC) 3. Manish Maheshwari vs ACIT, 289 ITR 341 (SC) 4.ACIT vs Rangoli Buildcon (P) Ltd. (ITA 5015/Del/2014) 5. K.M. Sharma vs ITO , 254 ITR 772 (SC) He further submitted that in all the above four cases, the Hon’ble Courts have given verdict about mandatory condition of recording satisfaction prior to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. The written submission filed by the assessee is as under:- ‘’The appellant challenges the proceedings u/s 153C on two counts i.e. no proper…

M/S.Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-40, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1291/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 153ASection 153BSection 37Section 68

…on provisions for completing assessments are to be strictly construed as under: The counsel for the appellants are justified in their contention that the provision relating to limitation need to be strictly construed. In the case of K.M. Sharma v. ITO [2002] 254 ITR 772/122 ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities (I) P. Ltd.; A.Y. 09–10 Taxman 426 (SC), this principle is laid down in the following words: f"13. Fiscal statute, more particularly a provision such as the present one regulating period of limitation must receive strict construction. The law…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Acer India Pvt Ltd

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

ITA/150/2019HC Karnataka31 Jan 2022

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 133ASection 194HSection 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 260

…n prescribed under the Act is not a mere period of limitation but the same imposes a fetter on the power of the assessing officer to take action under the said provision. [See: 'S.S.GADGIL VS. LAL & CO. (1964) 53 ITR 231 and 'K.M.SHARMA VS. ITO', (2002) 254 ITR 772]. In the instant case, admittedly, the statement referred to under Section 200 of the Act has been filed. A finding of fact in this regard has been recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. The limitation of 2 years as prescribed in Section 201(1A)(3) of the Act as it existed prior to its substitution…

Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-73(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 993/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…ion made available on the statute vide a subsequent amendment, unless the amended provision is clearly given a retrospective applicability. Our aforesaid observation is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO, 254 ITR 772 (SC). In its aforesaid order, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope and gamut of the amendment to sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, had observed, that if it was to be held that the amendment to sub-section (1) of Section 149 would enable the authorities to reopen the assessments which had already attained finality due to ba…

Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-73(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1984/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…ion made available on the statute vide a subsequent amendment, unless the amended provision is clearly given a retrospective applicability. Our aforesaid observation is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO, 254 ITR 772 (SC). In its aforesaid order, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope and gamut of the amendment to sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, had observed, that if it was to be held that the amendment to sub-section (1) of Section 149 would enable the authorities to reopen the assessments which had already attained finality due to ba…

Shri Jawahir Ravichandra Mehta, Dubai(Uae) vs. The DCIT, Circle-2, Rajkot

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

ITA 81/RJT/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(3)Section 4

…he Hon'ble ITAT has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Braham Dutt Vs. ACIT 100 taxmann.com 324, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S Gadgil Vs. Lal & Co. 53 ITR 231, and in the matter of K M Sharma v/s ITO 254 ITR 772 where in it has been held that when the time limit for issuing notice u/s. 148 has expired before any amendment in law from a prospective date will not revive. The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Shri Ravichandra V Mehta is as under "10. Thus, in all above cases Courts have held that when the time limit for issuing notice u/s. 148 has…

Raju Verma, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1804/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1798/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Ita No. 1799/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01 Ita No. 1800/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 1801/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 1802/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 1803/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1804/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Raju Verma, Vs Dcit, 17/1, Curzon Road, Central Circle, Dehradun-248001 Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abipv8176F Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyaya, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. C. Upadhyaya, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 194C

…98-99 invoking limitation of 16 years provided in section 149(c) of the Act for holding bank account in HSBC, Geneva. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO 254 ITR 772(SC), wherein ITA Nos. 1798 to 1804/Del/2017 4 Raju Verma the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation, could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended pr…

Raju Verma, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1803/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1798/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Ita No. 1799/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01 Ita No. 1800/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 1801/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 1802/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 1803/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1804/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Raju Verma, Vs Dcit, 17/1, Curzon Road, Central Circle, Dehradun-248001 Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abipv8176F Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyaya, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. C. Upadhyaya, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 194C

…98-99 invoking limitation of 16 years provided in section 149(c) of the Act for holding bank account in HSBC, Geneva. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO 254 ITR 772(SC), wherein ITA Nos. 1798 to 1804/Del/2017 4 Raju Verma the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation, could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended pr…

Raju Verma, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1802/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Oct 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1798/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Ita No. 1799/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01 Ita No. 1800/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 1801/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 1802/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 1803/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1804/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Raju Verma, Vs Dcit, 17/1, Curzon Road, Central Circle, Dehradun-248001 Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abipv8176F Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyaya, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. C. Upadhyaya, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 194C

…98-99 invoking limitation of 16 years provided in section 149(c) of the Act for holding bank account in HSBC, Geneva. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO 254 ITR 772(SC), wherein ITA Nos. 1798 to 1804/Del/2017 4 Raju Verma the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation, could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended pr…