M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI
In the result, both the appeals are allowed
ITA 25/VNS/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi19 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020
Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B
c), (d), (e) and (f) without any saving clause 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