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

Raju Verma, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1801/DEL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Oct 2021AY 2002-03

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 1800/DEL/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Oct 2021AY 2001-02

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 1799/DEL/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Oct 2021AY 2000-01

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 1798/DEL/2017[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Oct 2021AY 1999-2000

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…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 47/BANG/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…greater retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned, nor to authorise the Income-tax Officer to commence proceedings which before the new Act came into force had by the expiry of the period provided become barred."  In the case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “On a proper construction of the provisions of section 150(1) and the effect of its operation from 1-4-1989, we are clearly of the opinion that the provisions cannot be given retrospective effect prior to 1-4-1989 for assessments which have already become final due to bar of limitation prior to 1-4-…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 46/BANG/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…greater retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned, nor to authorise the Income-tax Officer to commence proceedings which before the new Act came into force had by the expiry of the period provided become barred."  In the case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “On a proper construction of the provisions of section 150(1) and the effect of its operation from 1-4-1989, we are clearly of the opinion that the provisions cannot be given retrospective effect prior to 1-4-1989 for assessments which have already become final due to bar of limitation prior to 1-4-…

M/S Hcl Technologies Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT (TDS), Noida

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ] (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HCL Technologies Ltd, ACIT(TDS), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida PAN: AAACH1645P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv., Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv., & Shri Arpit Goyal, C.A. Department by : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR, Date of Hearing 15/07/2020 Date of pronouncement 20/07/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. : 1. This appeal is filed by the by the assessee…

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5728/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 37Section 68Section 69C

…gh Court in Controller of Estate Duty V. Zafrul Hasan 146 ITR 220, CIT V Hari Raj Swarup & Sons 138 ITR 462, the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Varkey Jacob and Co. V. CIT 275 ITR 146 & the decision of Supreme Court in K.M. Sharma V. ITO 254 ITR 772. The learned AO has rejected this contention vide his letter no. F. No. DCIT Circle 8(1)/2013-14/926 dated 21.08.2013 by tersely observing “Regarding the opinion of G.N. Gupta Advocate it is stated that the above notice has been issued keeping in view the existing provisions ITA Nos. 5727 & 5728/Del/2014 5 Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd. the Inco…

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5727/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 37Section 68Section 69C

…gh Court in Controller of Estate Duty V. Zafrul Hasan 146 ITR 220, CIT V Hari Raj Swarup & Sons 138 ITR 462, the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Varkey Jacob and Co. V. CIT 275 ITR 146 & the decision of Supreme Court in K.M. Sharma V. ITO 254 ITR 772. The learned AO has rejected this contention vide his letter no. F. No. DCIT Circle 8(1)/2013-14/926 dated 21.08.2013 by tersely observing “Regarding the opinion of G.N. Gupta Advocate it is stated that the above notice has been issued keeping in view the existing provisions ITA Nos. 5727 & 5728/Del/2014 5 Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd. the Inco…

Raju Verma, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1797/DEL/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 147Section 148Section 149

…98-99 invoking limitation of 16 years provided in section 149(c) of the Act for holding bank account in HSBC, Zeneva. 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 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 provision is clearly given retrospective operati…

Raju Verma, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1796/DEL/2017[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 147Section 148Section 149

…98-99 invoking limitation of 16 years provided in section 149(c) of the Act for holding bank account in HSBC, Zeneva. 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 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 provision is clearly given retrospective operati…

Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot vs. Ravichandra V. Mehta, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 450/RJT/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Feb 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Jitendrakumar, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 5

…prescribed u/s.149 is bad in law and hence consequential assessment framed pursuant to such invalid notice is also required to be quashed and set aside.” 9.2. Once against that issue arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO 254 ITR 772 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under:- ITA Nos.409 & 410/RJT/2017 (by Assessee) and ITA Nos.450 & 451/RJT/2017 (by Revenue) Ravichandra V.Mehta vs. DCIT/ACIT Asst.Years – 1996-97 & 1997-98 “13. In KM Sharma's case (supra) the assessee‟s land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award was passed in 1967 granting com…

Ravichandra V. Mehta, Rajkot vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 409/RJT/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Feb 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Jitendrakumar, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 5

…prescribed u/s.149 is bad in law and hence consequential assessment framed pursuant to such invalid notice is also required to be quashed and set aside.” 9.2. Once against that issue arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO 254 ITR 772 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under:- ITA Nos.409 & 410/RJT/2017 (by Assessee) and ITA Nos.450 & 451/RJT/2017 (by Revenue) Ravichandra V.Mehta vs. DCIT/ACIT Asst.Years – 1996-97 & 1997-98 “13. In KM Sharma's case (supra) the assessee‟s land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award was passed in 1967 granting com…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bioplus Life Sciences Pvt Ltd

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA/1014/2017HC Karnataka24 Jul 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.1014 Of 2017 (T-Kst) Between: M/S. Rainbow Colour Lab, No.13, D.J.C. Complex, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 027. A Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partner Sri.G.K.Madan Mohan, Aged About 62 Years, S/O Sri.G.V.Krishna Reddy. ...Petitioner (By Sri. M.Thirumalesh, Advocate ) And: 1. State Of Karnataka

Section 12

…ted 10.01.2023 (Gujarat HC); (xiii) Neelam Motors vs. DCST – W.P.No.14486/2021 & others dated 26.08.2021 (Orissa HC); - 7 - (xiv) Sky Automobiles vs. DCCT – WP (C) No.2225 / 2017 dated 01.10.2021 (Orissa HC); (xv) K.M.Sharma vs. ITO – (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); (xvi) Speces Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT – (2003) 263 ITR 263; (xvii) National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd., vs. Union of India – (2003) 260 ITR 548; 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents, in addition reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, would suppo…

Ramesh Chand Soni HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Beawar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1024/JPR/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2017AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (J.CIT)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69

…der passed by this Tribunal on 26.03.2010 whereas the limitation for issuing the notice U/s 148 had already expired on 31.03.2009 hence, reopening of the reassessment is barred by limitation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.M. Sharma v/s ITO 254 ITR 772. He has further contended that even otherwise the appellate or revisional authority cannot give such a direction which goes to the extent of conferring jurisdiction upon the AO which he was not having lawfully. Alternatively the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that once the assessment order is merged with the order of the ld. CIT(A) pas…

Sunit Katyal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4206/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. Yudhister Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashna Paul, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)Section 251(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y.: 2003-04 SUNIt KATYAL, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, A-28, NIRMAN VIHAR, WARD 19(2), DELHI – 110 092 VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAFPK7285A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Yudhister Mehtani, CA Department by : Ms. Ashna Paul, Sr. DR O R D E R This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 28.3.2013 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2003-04 on the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has legally erred by directing ITO Ward 38(3) to make f…

Smt. Maya Rastogi, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 587/DEL/2016[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150Section 150(1)Section 151Section 234ASection 28

…ficer had issued notices u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act) for the Assessment Years 1989-90,1990-91,1992-93 and 1993-94 availing the benefit of limitation of Section 150(1) of the IT Act after twenty years on the basis of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO in 254 ITR 772 (SC) and also on the basis of judgment of Ashwani Dhingra vs. Chief CIT (All) wherein the court had held that the interest received on delayed payment of additional compensation is assessable on accrual basis. In the case of NRK Ramkumar vs. ITO in 249 ITR 385 = 106 Taxman 81, the Hon'ble Madras High Court, while considering the provision of Sect…

Smt. Maya Rastogi, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 586/DEL/2016[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150Section 150(1)Section 151Section 234ASection 28

…ficer had issued notices u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act) for the Assessment Years 1989-90,1990-91,1992-93 and 1993-94 availing the benefit of limitation of Section 150(1) of the IT Act after twenty years on the basis of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO in 254 ITR 772 (SC) and also on the basis of judgment of Ashwani Dhingra vs. Chief CIT (All) wherein the court had held that the interest received on delayed payment of additional compensation is assessable on accrual basis. In the case of NRK Ramkumar vs. ITO in 249 ITR 385 = 106 Taxman 81, the Hon'ble Madras High Court, while considering the provision of Sect…

Smt. Maya Rastogi, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 584/DEL/2016[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150Section 150(1)Section 151Section 234ASection 28

…ficer had issued notices u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act) for the Assessment Years 1989-90,1990-91,1992-93 and 1993-94 availing the benefit of limitation of Section 150(1) of the IT Act after twenty years on the basis of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO in 254 ITR 772 (SC) and also on the basis of judgment of Ashwani Dhingra vs. Chief CIT (All) wherein the court had held that the interest received on delayed payment of additional compensation is assessable on accrual basis. In the case of NRK Ramkumar vs. ITO in 249 ITR 385 = 106 Taxman 81, the Hon'ble Madras High Court, while considering the provision of Sect…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4513/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

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

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…ion 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 Taxman 426 (SC), this principle is laid down in the following words: "13. 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 l…