Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT

5 SCC 482Supreme Court of India1997#322 most cited

What is Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT authority for?

For income to be assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beneficial ownership or the right to enjoy the property is sufficient; legal ownership is not a mandatory prerequisite.

261

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Podar Cement · Podar Cement · Section 22 · Income from house property · beneficial owner · legal ownership · deemed owner · house property income · 5 SCC 482 · Supreme Court · taxability

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 1894Section 8DSection 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 9(1)(ii)section 23(1a)section 104section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 194lakeyman insurancesection 160

Judgments citing Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT

Harmala, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nangal

ITA 432/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

…the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P. 57 ) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'. 21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1) (ii) . It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee if the assessee has earned it in India. The w…

Amrinder Singh Khubber, Ambala vs. ITO, W-5, Ambala

ITA 1043/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

…en the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P. ) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'. 21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1) (ii) . It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee if the assessee has earned it in India. The w…

ACIT, Mumbai vs. K Raheja Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5350/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…ion must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force /See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352, 354; CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482, 506J. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are 'it is declared " or 'for the removal of doubts " 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of Section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee if the assessee has earned it in India. The…

ACIT, Mumbai vs. K Raheja Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5349/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…ion must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force /See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352, 354; CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482, 506J. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are 'it is declared " or 'for the removal of doubts ", 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of Section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee if the assessee has earned it in India. Th…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 1 vs. M/S Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is dismissed being covered

ITA/511/2025HC Delhi10 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 14Section 14ASection 260A

…ust be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352, 354; CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482, 506] . But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are “it is declared” or “for the removal of doubts”.” (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.M Aqua Technologies Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II…

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi-2 Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Delhi

ITA 1868/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e revenue" u/s.263 of the Act nor can the Assessee be required to break the said law vide SCN. C. Ownership of subject property not mandatory for claiming/classifying income under the head 'Income from house property' vide CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482 (vide para 2.3 to 2.3.2 of SCN). That there is no error in the interpretation and application of Section 22 to the facts of the Assessee vide ITR and scrutiny order as the same is in Page 15 ITA Nos.1868 & 1869/Del/2025 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19 & 2020-21) accordance with settled law i.e. Full Bench (3 Judges) de…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Ambattur Clothing Private Limited, Tiruvallur

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1663/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1663/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ambattur Clothing Private Limited, Income Tax, 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ambattur Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai. Ambattur, Thiruvallur 600 058. [Pan:Aaaca4127D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vinay Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 67 Days. The Appellant-Revenue Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Revenue Are Bonafide, Which 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Jain, CA
Section 14A

…ion must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352, 354; CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482, 506] . But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts"." (emphasis supplied) 8. On careful reading of the above decision, we find the facts and circumstances before the Hon’ble High Court are similar to the facts on hand, since the…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Delhi vs. Acb (India) Power Ltd

ITA/331/2025HC Delhi22 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 14A

…n with effect from the time that the main provision came into force (See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24 ;Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 825 (SC) ; (1997) 1 SCC 352, CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) ; (1997) 5 SCC 482. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'." (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M. M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 436 ITR 582 (SC) ; 2021 SCC OnLin…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Delhi vs. Acb (India) Power Ltd

ITA - 331 / 2025HC Delhi22 Aug 2025
Section 14A

…n with effect from the time that the main provision came into force (See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24 ;Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 825 (SC) ; (1997) 1 SCC 352, CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) ; (1997) 5 SCC 482. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'." (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M. M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 436 ITR 582 (SC) ; 2021 SCC OnLin…

Zodiac Ventures Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 11 (3) (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4135/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Tiwari, AR
Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 199Section 250

…on must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352, 354; CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482, 506]. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts".' (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 145/282 Taxman 281…

DCIT-5(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2987/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…hat the said provision though was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was a clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was retrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation claimed on spectrum and amortizing the same. 77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in ap…

Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2150/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…y Idea Cellular Ltd.) though was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was a clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was retrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation claimed on spectrum and amortizing the same. 77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in a…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2179/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ly Idea Cellular Ltd.) though was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was a clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was retrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation claimed on spectrum and amortizing the same. 77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in ap…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2178/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ly Idea Cellular Ltd.) though was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was a clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was retrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation claimed on spectrum and amortizing the same. 77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in ap…

Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1777/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…hat the said provision though was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was a clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was retrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation claimed on spectrum and amortizing the same. 77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in ap…

Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1775/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…hat the said provision though was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was a clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was retrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation claimed on spectrum and amortizing the same. 77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in ap…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5945/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…hat the said provision though was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was a clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was retrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation claimed on spectrum and amortizing the same. 77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in ap…

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Hq (Judl.) to CIT-14, Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5765/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…hat the said provision though was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 was applicable retrospectively as the same was a clarificatory amendment. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Bombay vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482 and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1, thereby holding that the amendment to the provision was retrospective and upheld the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation claimed on spectrum and amortizing the same. 77. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in a…

Indus Valley Properties Private Limited, Kabra Excelcior vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(4) Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…on with effect from the time that the main provision came into force [See ITA No.81/Bang/2025. Page 13 of 19 Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352, 354; CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. , (1997) 5 SCC 482, 506]. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts". (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.M Aqua Technologies Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-III, [2021]…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2901/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2900 & 2901/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24; Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352, 354; CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482, 506]. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts".'(emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 145/282 Taxman 281…