Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 110 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. on 20 July, 2022

Suzlon Energy Ltd.,,Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 12 November, 2024

The learned Tribunal took note of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (supra), which had taken note of the decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that amendment by the Finance Act, 2022 of Section 14 A of the Act by inserting a non-obstante clause and explanation we take effect from 01.04.22 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect and, therefore, on facts the amendment cannot be applied to the assessment year under consideration. We find no error in such conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, substantial questions of law No. D & E are decided against the revenue."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 110 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Suzlon Energy Ltd.,, Ahmedabad on 12 November, 2024

The learned Tribunal took note of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (supra), which had taken note of the decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that amendment by the Finance Act, 2022 of Section 14 A of the Act by inserting a non-obstante clause and explanation we take effect from 01.04.22 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect and, therefore, on facts the amendment cannot be applied to the assessment year under consideration. We find no error in such conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, substantial questions of law No. D & E are decided against the revenue."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 110 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suzlon Energy Ltd.,,Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 12 November, 2024

The learned Tribunal took note of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (supra), which had taken note of the decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that amendment by the Finance Act, 2022 of Section 14 A of the Act by inserting a non-obstante clause and explanation we take effect from 01.04.22 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect and, therefore, on facts the amendment cannot be applied to the assessment year under consideration. We find no error in such conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, substantial questions of law No. D & E are decided against the revenue."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 110 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Lucknow vs M/S U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., ... on 16 May, 2025

(D.2) Whether the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act is retrospective or prospective has been considered by various Hon'ble High Courts in the cases reported as Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), Williamson Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 607 (Gauhati) and Pr. CIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta). In these decisions, Hon'ble High Courts have held that the amendment to section 14A of the Income Tax Act, whereby the aforesaid explanation was inserted, is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble High Courts, it is held that explanation to section 14A of the Act, inserted by amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2022, with effect from 01/04/2022, is prospective in nature and has no application to the assessment year 2016-17 to which this appeal pertains. Accordingly, it is held that the assessee is not hit by the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act in so far as assessment year 2016-17 is concerned. Further, in respectful consideration of precedents mentioned in foregoing paragraphs (D.1.1) and (D.1.1.1) of this order; it is held that no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of IT Act in assessment year 2016-17. In view of I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 31 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 the foregoing, we decline to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Lucknow vs M/S U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., ... on 16 May, 2025

(D.2) Whether the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act is retrospective or prospective has been considered by various Hon'ble High Courts in the cases reported as Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), Williamson Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 607 (Gauhati) and Pr. CIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta). In these decisions, Hon'ble High Courts have held that the amendment to section 14A of the Income Tax Act, whereby the aforesaid explanation was inserted, is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble High Courts, it is held that explanation to section 14A of the Act, inserted by amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2022, with effect from 01/04/2022, is prospective in nature and has no application to the assessment year 2016-17 to which this appeal pertains. Accordingly, it is held that the assessee is not hit by the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act in so far as assessment year 2016-17 is concerned. Further, in respectful consideration of precedents mentioned in foregoing paragraphs (D.1.1) and (D.1.1.1) of this order; it is held that no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of IT Act in assessment year 2016-17. In view of I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 31 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 the foregoing, we decline to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Lucknow vs M/S U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., ... on 16 May, 2025

(D.2) Whether the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act is retrospective or prospective has been considered by various Hon'ble High Courts in the cases reported as Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi), Williamson Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 607 (Gauhati) and Pr. CIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta). In these decisions, Hon'ble High Courts have held that the amendment to section 14A of the Income Tax Act, whereby the aforesaid explanation was inserted, is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble High Courts, it is held that explanation to section 14A of the Act, inserted by amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2022, with effect from 01/04/2022, is prospective in nature and has no application to the assessment year 2016-17 to which this appeal pertains. Accordingly, it is held that the assessee is not hit by the aforesaid explanation to section 14A of the Act in so far as assessment year 2016-17 is concerned. Further, in respectful consideration of precedents mentioned in foregoing paragraphs (D.1.1) and (D.1.1.1) of this order; it is held that no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of IT Act in assessment year 2016-17. In view of I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 31 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 the foregoing, we decline to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next