Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Rajiv Bhatara (Supreme Court)

CIT vs. Rajiv Bhatara (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 26, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

The Proviso to s. 113 is retrospective

The Provio to s. 113 (which imposes surcharge on block assessments), though inserted only with effect from 1.6.2002, is applicable to searches conducted prior to that date as it is ‘clarificatory’ and ‘curative’ in nature.

CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta 297 ITR 322 (SC) followed.

Note: It appears the attention of the Bench was not drawn to the fact that in CIT vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2009) 17 DTR 353 (SC) / (2009) 221 CTR 409 (SC) the issue has been referred to a larger Bench.

See Also: The bane of retrospective amendments by N. M. Ranka, Advocate and Interpretation of Statutes by Sorabh Soparkar, Advocate.

Related Judgements

  1. M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee had led satisfactory evidence that its business was that of a commission agent and not a trader and 10-11 years had passed, the assessee could not be held responsible for non-appearance of five traders to whom summons … M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme…
  2. Munjal Sales vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    (i) A firm seeking to claim deduction of interest paid on capital from its partners has to first satisfy the requirements of s. 36(1)(iii) and thereafter the limits imposed by s. 40(b)(iv). The fact that the said capital is not … Munjal Sales vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Read…
  3. Sahara India vs. CIT (Supreme Court) (Larger Bench) 

    Before dubbing the accounts to be complex or difficult to understand, there has to be a genuine and honest attempt on the part of the AO to understand accounts maintained by the assessee; appreciate the entries made therein and in the event of any doubt, seek explanation from the…
  4. Malayala Manorama vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    The AO has no jurisdiction u/s 115J of the Act to go behind the Profit & loss account of the assessee and to make adjustments therein beyond what is expressly provided in s. 115J. An assessee is entitled to provide for depreciation in its books at rates which are…
  5. CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance (Supreme Court) 

    The amount of share application money received by a Company from alleged bogus shareholders cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under S. 68 of I. T. Act for the simple reason that if the names of the alleged bogus shareholders are given to the AO, then the Department is…