Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala

60 ITR 262Supreme Court of India1966#750 most cited

What is Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala authority for?

The law applicable for an assessment year is the law as it stands amended on the first day of April of that financial year. Any amendments coming into force after April 1st do not apply to the assessments for that year.

136

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala · 60 ITR 262 SC · applicability of law · assessment year · law in force · amendment effective date · Income-tax Act 1961 · Section 143 · Section 142

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 1894Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 1961

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 Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala

M/S. Vodafone Essar East Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 7, Kolkata

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 357/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…is settled law that the law to be applied is that enforce in the relevant assessment year. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions: Maharajah of Pithapuram vs. CIT (13 ITR 221) (PC); Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala (60 ITR 262) (SC) Reliance vs. CIT (120 ITR 921) (SC) Goslino Mario vs. CIT (241 ITR 314) (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajai Tempo’s case (196 ITR 188) held that the provision granting deduction, exemption or relief should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. The above test has also been laid down in the following case: CIT vs. South Arc…

M/S. Vodafone Essar East Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range - 7, Kolkata

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 356/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…is settled law that the law to be applied is that enforce in the relevant assessment year. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions: Maharajah of Pithapuram vs. CIT (13 ITR 221) (PC); Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala (60 ITR 262) (SC) Reliance vs. CIT (120 ITR 921) (SC) Goslino Mario vs. CIT (241 ITR 314) (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajai Tempo’s case (196 ITR 188) held that the provision granting deduction, exemption or relief should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. The above test has also been laid down in the following case: CIT vs. South Arc…

ACIT, Circle - 7, Kolkata vs. Hutchison Telecom East Limited, Kolkata

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 343/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…is settled law that the law to be applied is that enforce in the relevant assessment year. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions: Maharajah of Pithapuram vs. CIT (13 ITR 221) (PC); Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala (60 ITR 262) (SC) Reliance vs. CIT (120 ITR 921) (SC) Goslino Mario vs. CIT (241 ITR 314) (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajai Tempo’s case (196 ITR 188) held that the provision granting deduction, exemption or relief should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. The above test has also been laid down in the following case: CIT vs. South Arc…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s Procter & Gamble CIT-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAACP6332M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms. Moksha Mehta Shri Subachan Ram CIT-DR राज…

Akash Enterprise, Thane vs. I.T.O. Ward-4(1), Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4489/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 M/S Akash Enterprises, Income Tax Officer, Shop No.27/A, Bldg. No.1, Ward-4(1), बनाम/ Akashganga Apts. 02Nd Floor Vs. Shriprastha Complex, Qureshi Mansion, Nallasopara (W), Tal Vasai, Gokhale Road, Dist-Thane-401203 Thane Pan No.Aalfa4071C ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2007-08 Income Tax Officer, M/S Akash Enterprises, Ward-4(1), Shop No.27/A, Bldg. बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, No.1, Akashganga Apts. Vs. Qureshi Mansion, Shriprastha Complex, Gokhale Road, Nallasopara (W), Tal Thane Vasai, Dist-Thane- 401203 Pan No.Aalfa4071C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Akash Enterprises.

Section 147Section 80I

…72 of the Act. Therefore, the applicable law on the date of filing of the return cannot be confined only to the losses of the previous accouting years." 8. He also referred to the decision in the case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 (SC) which is to the same effect. M/s Akash Enterprises. 9. Mr. J.D. Mistry, learned senior counsel who appeared on behalf of the assessees in some of these appeals emphatically countered the aforesaid arguments. In the first instance, he pointed out that this argument of retroactivity was not even raised by the Revenue in the High Courts or befo…

Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5287/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Senior DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5287/Del./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) M/s. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 11 (1), C/o Shri Ravinder Gupta, CA New Delhi. 20, Vakil Lane, K.G. Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAACB2817R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Amrit Lal, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2016 Date of Order : 10.02.2017 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The Appellant, M/s. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd.…

ITO, Ward - 56(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Nopany & Sons, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1621/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…ACCO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2009) reported in 120 TTJ 577. In the said case, the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of the Apex. Court in the case of KARIMTHARUVI TEA ESTATE LTD. v. STATE OF KERALA [1966]60 ITR 262 (SC) observed as under: "If the present issue is considered in the light 0/ the above decision 0/ Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, it has to be held that s.292BB is applicable to asst. yr. 2008-09 and subsequent years. Therefore, answer to the second aspect of the question is that assessee is precluded from taking such objection/or and from asst. yr.…

M/S. Nopany & Sons, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 56(4), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…ACCO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2009) reported in 120 TTJ 577. In the said case, the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of the Apex. Court in the case of KARIMTHARUVI TEA ESTATE LTD. v. STATE OF KERALA [1966]60 ITR 262 (SC) observed as under: "If the present issue is considered in the light 0/ the above decision 0/ Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, it has to be held that s.292BB is applicable to asst. yr. 2008-09 and subsequent years. Therefore, answer to the second aspect of the question is that assessee is precluded from taking such objection/or and from asst. yr.…

Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we allow the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

ITA 6387/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 10ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6386 and 6387/Del/2012 AY: 2001-02 and 2007-08 Infrasoft Technologies Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT, Circle 11(1) C/o Ravinder Gupta, C.A. New Delhi 20, Vakil Lane, KG Marg New Delhi 110 001 PAN: AAACB 2817 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Vijay Mehta, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Both these appeals filed by the assessee and are directed against separate orders of the Commissi…

Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we allow the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

ITA 6386/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 10ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6386 and 6387/Del/2012 AY: 2001-02 and 2007-08 Infrasoft Technologies Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT, Circle 11(1) C/o Ravinder Gupta, C.A. New Delhi 20, Vakil Lane, KG Marg New Delhi 110 001 PAN: AAACB 2817 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Vijay Mehta, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Both these appeals filed by the assessee and are directed against separate orders of the Commissi…

M/S Singha Exim, Nadia vs. ITO, (System)IV, Kolkata, WD-3, Nadia

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 265/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No.265/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Chakraborty and Shri P.S.Gupta,AdvocateFor Respondent: Md.S.S.Alam, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 156Section 40Section 80H

…cable for ITA No.265/Kol/2015-M/s. Singha Exim-A.Y.2007-08 3 processing of return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act, the learned counsel for the Assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 60 ITR 262(SC) and Gangadhar Bera Vs. ACIT 267 ITR 422(Cal). The contention of the learned DR was that Sec.143(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and not a substantive law and therefore the law as on the date when the return of income is processed u/s.143(1) of the Act, would apply. 7. Sec.143(1) as it existed when the return filed by the Assessee was pr…

Late Mr.Sarosh Burjorjee, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 1287/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Raoms.Zenobya Burjorjee, L/R Of Sarosh Burjorjee, No.288, 6Th Bloc, 18Th D Main, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095. … Appellant Pan: Abopb0685M Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 234Section 94Section 94(7)

…e assessee and held that the provisions of sec.94(7)(b)(ii) of the Act is squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. She has fortified her view by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karimthanavi Tea Estates Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 60 ITR 262. 6. Before us, learned AR of the assessee submitted that the liability of the tax was not foreseeable at the time of transaction carried out by the assessee because the amendment in the provisions of sec.94(7) was brought into statute subsequently and therefore, the assessee cannot be held liable for tax when it was not possible for the assessee,…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt Ltd

The appeal stands disposed of

ITA/1159/2010HC Delhi06 Oct 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 143(2)Section 158Section 292Section 2g

…h c) % * IN TIIE HIGH COURT OF DELI{I AT NEW DELHI -r. ITA No.1l59/2010 CIT ..... APPellant 'I'hrough: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharu'al, Sr. Stancling Counscl. versus KIJI]l-ilt'I-OIIACCO PRODUCTS P. LTD. ..... Itcspondent 'fhrough: Mr. Ajay Vohra. and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates. l)atc oI l)ecision : October 06. 2010 CORAM: tr.ION'I}I,E MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI IIC)N'BLE MS. J{JS'tr'ICtr] REyA KIIETRAPAL 1. Whethcr reporters ot local papers ma1'be allowcd to sce the judgment? 2.'['<t bc rcfcrred to the ltcporter or not? 3. Whcthcr.jurdgment shoulcl be reported in Digcsti' JUpGMENT(ORAL) : REVA KHE'IRAPAL, J. A search operat…