Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India

2 SCC 536Reported decision2000#904 most cited

What is Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby affecting the continuation of pending proceedings.

117

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2003 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India · Section 6 General Clauses Act · omission of statutory provision · repeal of statutory provision · pending proceedings · effect of omission · Section 92BA · transfer pricing adjustment · validity of TPO order · statutory interpretation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 92BA(i)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92CA(3)Section 115JAASection 115JBSection 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 92ba(i)section 92basection 6(1)specified domestic transactionreference to tposection 92bsection 40a(2)section 40a(2)(b)section 92ca(3)transfer pricing adjustmentsection 2(24)(x)section 92ca

Judgments citing Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India

M/S. Bhartia-Smsil(Jv), Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Dal, Addl. CIT, Sr. Dr
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 92BSection 92C

…roadblocks in the form of two Constitution Bench decisions. He cited Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. and M.R. Pratap v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, (1969) 2 SCC 412 which was followed in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. &Anr. v. Union of India &Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 536. He argued based upon these two judgments that an “omission” would not amount to “repeal” and that since the present case was concerned with the omission of Section 280ZA, Section 24 would have no application. 20. Shri Prasad is correct in relying upon these two Constitution Bench judgments for they do indeed say that in Section 6 of the General C…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2885/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner M/s. Repco Home Finance v. Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, 33, North Usman Road, Corporate Circle-5(1), T.Nagar, Chennai-600034 Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAACR 0209 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri ARV Sreenivasan, अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/…

Raipur Steel Casting India (P)) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 895/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, ld.DR
Section 263Section 92BSection 92C

…t exercise jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act for a provision of law which is never existed in the Income Tax Act. Both the ld Counsel relied on the judgments of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. V Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 536 and in Royala Corporation P. Ltd. V Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412. The above judgments were reiterated in the case of General Finance Co. Vs. Asstt CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). 10. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Shankar, (CIT-DR), on behalf of the Revenue vehimently argued that clause (i) of section 92BA has been “repealed” and not “omit…

M/S Srinath Ji Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 1035/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, ld.DR
Section 263Section 92BSection 92C

…t exercise jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act for a provision of law which is never existed in the Income Tax Act. Both the ld Counsel relied on the judgments of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. V Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 536 and in Royala Corporation P. Ltd. V Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412. The above judgments were reiterated in the case of General Finance Co. Vs. Asstt CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). 10. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Shankar, (CIT-DR), on behalf of the Revenue vehimently argued that clause (i) of section 92BA has been “repealed” and not “omit…

V Hanumantharayappa vs. State of Karnataka

WP/44577/2017HC Karnataka06 Mar 2020

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

Section 12(3)Section 14Section 19

…ew Delhi & Others (1978) 4 SCC 405 5. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Others (1987) 4 SCC 611 6. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K.Ratna & Others (1986) 4 SCC 537 7. Chief of Army Staff & Others v. Major Dharam Pal Kukrety (1985) 2 SCC 412 8. The Barium Chemical Ltd & Another v. SH.A. J. Rana & Others (1972) 1 SCC 240 9. Chairman, Life Insurance (2013) 6 SCC 530 11 Corporation of India & Others v. A.Masilamani 10. M/s. Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer, Porbander AIR 1959 SC 881 11. Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India & Oth…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dewan Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5784/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Dewan Sugar Ltd., Circle-10(1), New Delhi Surya Plaza, 1St Floor, K- 185, Sarai Jullena, New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aaacd3465H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 36

…ause would mean that the provisions were never in existence. For this purpose, in the said case the assessee had placed reliance on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd vs. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd vs. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. & Anr. vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 176 CTR (SC) 569 : (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT vs. Assam Tribune (2002) 253 ITR 93…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -1 (International Taxation) vs. Ge Caledonian Ltd

ITA/664/2018HC Delhi01 Jun 2018

Bench: The Learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Ncdrc) Against The Petitioner Lucina Land Development Ltd. & Others By 51 Allotees Of Flats In A Project Of The Petitioners, Titled ―Indiabulls Greens Panvel‖ (―The Project‖, Hereinafter). The Complaint, Preferred Under Section Digitally Signed By:Sunil Singh Negi Signing Date:02.05.2022 15:58:14 Signature Not Verified

Section 12(1)(c)Section 2(1)(d)Section 2(1)(g)

…the 1986 Act. This position, she submits, stands expressly recognised in the opening sentence of para 53 of the 9 (2003) 2 SCC 412 10 23. Appeal. – Any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 21, may prefer an appeal against such order of the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the order: Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal af…

Brijbasi Art Press Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6165/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi M/S. Brijbasi Art Press Ltd., E- 46/11, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase- Ii, New Delhi Pan :Aaacb0044L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 43B

…ause would mean that the provisions were never in existence. For this purpose, in the said case the assessee had placed reliance on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd vs. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd vs. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. & Anr. vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 176 CTR (SC) 569 : (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT vs. Assam Tribune (2002) 253 ITR 93…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd

ITA/224/2017HC Delhi10 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 10A(2)(c)

…Delhi & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 2537. (iii) Shivani Vs. Employee State Insurance Corporation, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9134. (iv) Gujarat Pottery Works Vs. B.P. Sood., AIR 1967 SC 964. (v) Kohlapur Canesugar Works Ltd. & Anr. Vs. UoI & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 536. (vi) Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr., (2016) 3 SCC 643. Digitally Signed By:CHARU CHAUDHARY Signing Date:29.02.2024 16:08:49 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 224/2017 Page 35 of 118 ANA…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Celetronix India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) बनधम/ Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Jabil Circuit (I) Pvt.Ltd., Tax -8(1), Vs. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.103, Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Road No.12, Opp Tunga Paradise, Aayaker Bhavan, Marol, Midc, Andheri (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaact7548K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.81/Mum/2010 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, बनधम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms.Radha K NarangFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjiv Shah, Shailesh
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the statute/ it should be considered as if such provision never existed This contention is also accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions rendered in the cases of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. And Another, Appellants V. Union Of India And Others (2 SCC 536) and General Finance Co and Another V/s ACIT(257 ITR 338) I have also considered the decision of Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal in the case of GE Thermometrics India P Ltd (ITA 257 and 258jBangj08) cited by the appellant in support of its above argument. I find that the case of the appellant is covered by the aforesaid Bangalore Tribunal decision since…

M/S Fibre Boards (P) Ltd Bangaloare vs. CIT Bangalore

C.A. No.-005525-005526 - 2005Supreme Court11 Aug 2015
Section 280YSection 280ZSection 54G

…ench decisions. He cited Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. and M.R. Pratap v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, (1969) 2 SCC 412 which was 25 Page 26 JUDGMENT followed in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 536. He argued based upon these two judgments that an “omission” would not amount to “repeal” and that since the present case was concerned with the omission of Section 280ZA, Section 24 would have no application. 20. Shri Prasad is correct in relying upon these two Constitution Bench judgments for they do indeed say that in Sec…

M/S Fibre Boards (P) Ltd Bangaloare vs. CIT Bangalore

C.A. No.-005525-005526 - 2005Supreme Court11 Aug 2015
Section 280YSection 280ZSection 54G

…ench decisions. He cited Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. and M.R. Pratap v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, (1969) 2 SCC 412 which was 25 Page 26 JUDGMENT followed in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 536. He argued based upon these two judgments that an “omission” would not amount to “repeal” and that since the present case was concerned with the omission of Section 280ZA, Section 24 would have no application. 20. Shri Prasad is correct in relying upon these two Constitution Bench judgments for they do indeed say that in Sec…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AIMIL Limited

ITA-1063/2006HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 1063 of 2006 ITA No.755 of 2008 ITA No. 204 of 2009 ITA No. 1214/2008 with ITA No. 1246/2008 ITA No. 50/2009 ITA No. 78/2009 % Reserved on: December 04, 2009 Pronounced on: December 23, 2009 1. ITA No. 1063/2008 Commissioner of Income Tax . . . Appellant through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal with Mr. Paras Chaudhry, Advocates VERSUS AIMIL Limited . . . Respondent through : Dr. Rakesh Gupta with Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Advocates 2. ITA No. 1214/2008 Nirmala Swami…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Modipon Ltd

ITA - 78 / 2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 7812009 + o/o Reserved on: December 04. 2009 Pronounced on: December 23, 2009 Appellant Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advoiate Respondent Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate (STDDHARTH MRTDUL) JUD6E r) Commissioner of Income Tax-ll through : VERSUS Modipon Ltd. through : December 23,2009 nsk .4\ COMM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. sIKRI. J. For orders,…

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. P.M.Electronics Ltd

ITA - 475 / 2007HC Delhi03 Nov 2008
Section 1Section 139Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…would mean that the provisions were never in existence. For this purpose, in the said case the assessee had placed reliance on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and T…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. P M Electronics Ltd

ITA/475/2007HC Delhi03 Nov 2008
Section 1Section 139Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…would mean that the provisions were never in existence. For this purpose, in the said case the assessee had placed reliance on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and T…

Itw Signode India Ltd vs. Collector of Central Excise

Appeal is allowed in part but

C.A. No.-007868-007868 - 1995Supreme Court19 Nov 2003
For Respondent: Collector of Central Excise
Section 11A

…The effect of creating such legal fiction is well-known and need not be reiterated. [See Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 111, State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Soc. & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 412, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. P.P. Singh and Anr 2003 (4) SCC 239 and Dipak Chandra Ruhidas Vs. Chandan Kumar Sarkar (2003) 7 SCC 66] Before us, the constitutionality of Section 11A as amended in the year 2000 has not been questioned. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 22 Cotspun (su…