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 367,154 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

ACIT -CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Successor to M/S.Magna Distribution & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 2505/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…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". 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…

Chalet Hotels Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 1401/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…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". 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…

Chalet Hotels Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 1400/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…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". 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…

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…en the 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; CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (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) • PCIT vs Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd (2022) 448 ITR 674 (Del) • PCIT Vs Oil Industry Development Board (2022) 115 CCH 245 DelHC • Graphite India Limited vs PC…

Puspak Steel Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 852/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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”. 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, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4972/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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”. 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, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4971/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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”. 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, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4970/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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”. 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, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4969/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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”. 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, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4968/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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”. 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…

M/S Wevin Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 367/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 201Section 250Section 254

…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 28…

Elara Capital (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Milind DattaniFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule (Addl. CIT)
Section 14A

…came into force [See Shyam Sunder v Shyam Sunder v. Ram provision came into force Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Kumar Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352, 354; 1 SCC 352, 354; CIT v. Laxman Das v Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482, 506 482, 506]. But if it Podar Cement changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are irrespective of the fact that the…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3674/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 194Section 250Section 40

…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…

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax-Circle 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 194Section 250Section 40

…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…

M/S. Bhatia Global Trading Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibhatia Global Trading Ltd. Dcit 1(1) Through Official Liquidator Indore Old Cia Building, 1St Floor Vs. Opp. G.P.O. Residency Area, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacb6751 C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)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) 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…

M/S. Calcutta Springs Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC- 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…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) 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 S…

M/S. Calcutta Springs Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC- 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 767/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…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) 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 S…

M/S. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd., Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Durgapur

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

ITA 534/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

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, 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. 8 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 M/s. Bengal S…

Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1013/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…m the time that the 19 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 Graphite India Limited 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-III, 2021 S…