Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai vs Gaurav Investments, Mumbai on 8 October, 2025 cites

Smt. Cheryl Maria Fernandes, Mumbai vs Ito (It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai on 15 January, 2021

13. We also notice that the coordinate bench in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO(IT) [2021] 123 taxmann.com 252/187 ITD 738 (Mumbai - Trib.) in the context of section 50C has elaborated the legislative intent of introducing the tolerance band and held that the amendment providing the tolerance band is retrospective in nature and relates back to the date of insertion of statutory section to the Act. The relevant extract of the observations made by the coordinate bench are extracted here under -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Commr.Of Income Tax-I,New Delhi vs Vatika Township P.Ltd on 15 September, 2014

043. Therefore, the above decision of the coordinate bench clearly clinches the issue in favour of the assessee wherein it has been held that tolerance band of 10% would be applicable retrospectively. We also find that similar view has also been taken in SHRI HARISH H GANDHI VERSUS ACIT 33 (1), MUMBAI ITA No. 1244/Mum/2019 And ITA No.2603/Mum/2019 V.K. DEVELOPERS VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE. ITA No.923/PUN/2019 M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 (2), MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA) TA No. 1953/Mum/2020 And ITA No. 1954/Mum/2020 And ITA No.11/Mum/2021 And ITA No. 12/Mum/2021 M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. AMANORA FUTURE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,) VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1) PUNE AND VICE VERSA (2022) 96 ITR
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 888 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Central Ii vs Suresh N. Gupta on 7 January, 2008

assessment unless the provision to that effect is inserted by amendment either retrospectively or by necessary implications retrospectively. The Hon'ble Apex Court also opined that there cannot be any imposition of tax without the authority of law and such law has to be unambiguous and should prescribe liability to pay taxes in clear terms. This very principle is based on the doctrine, which means that if a particular provision of statute is not clear regarding imposition of tax or because of persons from whom the tax has to be collected, in such case the persons should not be fastened with any liability to pay tax. It was further observed that though the Chief Commissioner in their Conference suggested that there should be retrospective amendment to section 113 of the Act, the Legislature chose not to do so even though for other provisions in which the legislature in its wisdom felt the need to do so has brought in amendments made with retrospective effect. The CBDT circular No. 2002 dated 27-08-2002 also makes it clear that the amendment to section 113 is prospective. Consequently, the conclusion reached in N. Suresh Gupta (supra) treating the proviso to section 113 of the Act as clarificatory and having retrospective effect was held to be incorrect and was over-ruled.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 85 - Full Document

C.I.T.,Jalandhar vs Rajiv Bhatara on 19 February, 2009

Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajiv Bhatara (2009) 178 Taxman 285/310 ITR 105 by holding the proviso u/s 113 to be retrospective in nature. Then the Supreme Court was of the view that the issue ought to be referred to a larger Bench of Five Judges. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given fundamental doctrine of retrospective applicability of provision. It has been held that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in terms of the Act or arises by necessary and distinct implication. The assessment creates a vested right on the assessee. The assessee cannot be subjected to re-
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 38 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next