M A Murthy v. State of Karnataka

7 SCC 517Reported decision2003#25656 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80JJAASection 44AB

Judgments citing M A Murthy v. State of Karnataka

TALENTPRO INDIA HR PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2722/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2721 & 2722/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Talentpro India Hr Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 30, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Income Tax, Chennai 600 008. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aabcp9823A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunathaboth The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different But Identical Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram Both Dated 28.08.2024 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…on of the assessee is that unless specifically directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to apply the judgement retrospectively, the judgement applies prospectively only, is not acceptable for the reason that in the case of M A Murthy v State of Karnataka, (2003) 7 SCC 517, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “It is for this Court to indicate as to whether the decision in question will operate prospectively. In other words, there shall be no prospective over- ruling, unless it is so indicated in the particular decision. It is not open to be held that the decision in a particular case will be prospective in i…

TALENT PRO INDIA HR PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1),CORPORATE CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2721/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2721 & 2722/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Talentpro India Hr Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 30, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Income Tax, Chennai 600 008. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aabcp9823A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunathaboth The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different But Identical Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram Both Dated 28.08.2024 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…on of the assessee is that unless specifically directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to apply the judgement retrospectively, the judgement applies prospectively only, is not acceptable for the reason that in the case of M A Murthy v State of Karnataka, (2003) 7 SCC 517, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “It is for this Court to indicate as to whether the decision in question will operate prospectively. In other words, there shall be no prospective over- ruling, unless it is so indicated in the particular decision. It is not open to be held that the decision in a particular case will be prospective in i…

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Heritage Finlease Ltd.,

ITTA/194/2013HC Telangana04 Jul 2013
For Respondent: MR. S DUTTA

…ng the future prospects at Rs. 12,000/- per month. 15. The question that thus arises is what will be the percentage of income the appellant will be entitled towards future prospects. In the case of M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2003 7 SCC 517, the Apex Court has held that normally, the decision of the Supreme Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of stage of pendency thereof, because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law from inception. The doctrine of prospective overruling which is a feature of American j…

M A Murthy v. State of Karnataka (7 SCC 517) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax