Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT

1 SCC 139Supreme Court of India1980#421 most cited

What is Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The cardinal principle of tax law dictates that the law applicable to an assessment is the law in force for the relevant assessment year, unless the statute expressly or implicitly provides otherwise. A clarificatory statutory explanation must be read into the main provision from its inception.

214

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT · law in force · assessment year · clarificatory amendment · retrospective amendment · statutory explanation · Section 143 · Section 142 · applicability of tax law

Also reported as

2 Taxmann 417

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 8DSection 143(3)Section 1894Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(ii)section 80absection 73clarificatory amendmentresulting companytransferor companyretrospective amendmentsection 9(1)right to receiveddtdisallowance under section 14asection 115jb(2)

Judgments citing Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT

Sodexo Svc India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 980/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 206A

…v/s Union of India and Anr., [2016] 385 ITR 497 (Guj.); ii) Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v/s Union of India, [2016] SCC Online (Guj.) 4788; iii) CIT v/s Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC); iv) Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v/s CIT, [1980] 1 SCC 139; v) CIT v/s Shah Sadiq & Sons, [1987] 3 SCC 516 (SC). 6. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the first appellate authority. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused materials available on record in the light of the decisions cited. So far as the factual aspect of the issue is concerned, there is no d…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, जे, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District CIT-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAAAM3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri B. Srinivas, C…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, 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: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAXFS3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क"…

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

…rred to the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308/172 Taxman 386 and, particularly, the discussion contained in paras 9 and 16 which are reproduced hereunder: "9. In Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 1 SCC 139, it was observed by this Court that the law to be applied in income tax assessments is the law in force in the assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. ** ** ** 16. The law is well settled that the applicable provision would be the law as it existed on the date of the filing of the return. It is of relevance…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Hampson Russell Ltd Partnership, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 4976/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 115ASection 44BSection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…rinciple of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication [See also : Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 13 CTR (SC) 186 : (1980) 1 SCC 139]. An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See : Sonia Bhatia vs. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24 : (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read…

ADIT Intl. Taxation, Dehradun vs. M/S. Hampson Russell Ltd. Partnership., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 1182/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 115ASection 44BSection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…rinciple of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication [See also : Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 13 CTR (SC) 186 : (1980) 1 SCC 139]. An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See : Sonia Bhatia vs. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24 : (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read…

Addl CIT RG 15(1), Mumbai vs. Bhumiraj Constructions, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8803/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit(Osd), M/S Bhumiraj Constructions Circle-15(1), D/5-6, Big Splash, बनाम/ Room No.104, Matru Mandir, Sector-17, Vs. 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai-400007 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaffb3546H Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Bhumiraj Constructions Jcit(Osd), D/5-6, Big Splash, Circle-15(1), बनाम/ Sector-17, Room No.104, Matru Mandir, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400703 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaffb3546H

Section 221(1)Section 80I

…vested right thereby which cannot be taken away. It is ludicrous on the part of the Revenue authorities to expect the assessee to do something which is almost impossible 2.5. In M/s. Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T., West Bengal, Calcutta, (1980) 1 SCC 139, this Court had, no doubt, pointed out the cardinal principle of tax law that the law to be applied has to be the law in force in the assessment year. However, this is qualified by the exception when it is provided otherwise expressly or by necessary implication, as is clear from the following observations: “6. The assessee claims a vested right u…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5290/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/O Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (Pan: Aabch9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

…rinciple of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication [See also : Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 13 CTR (SC) 186 : (1980) 1 SCC 139]. An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See : Sonia Bhatia vs. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24 : (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read…

Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5217/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/O Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (Pan: Aabch9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

…rinciple of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication [See also : Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 13 CTR (SC) 186 : (1980) 1 SCC 139]. An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See : Sonia Bhatia vs. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24 : (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read…

Sedco Forex International Drill.Inc.&Ors vs. Commnr. of Income Tax, Dehrudun

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-000351-000355 - 2005Supreme Court17 Nov 2005
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun & Anr
Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(ii)

…(supra), a cardinal principle of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. [See also: Reliance Jute and Industries vs. CIT (1980) 1 SCC 139]. An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section . If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into fo…