| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
January 19, 2010 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Right to set-off loss is a “vested right” which is available despite amendment in year of set-off
In AY 2002-03, the assessee suffered a long-term capital loss. U/s 74(1) as it then stood, such loss could be carried forward and set off against all capital gains including short-term capital gains. S. 74 was amended in AY 2003-04 to provide that long-term capital loss could only be set-off against long-term capital gains and not against short-term-capital gain. When the assessee claimed a set-off in AY 2004-05 the question arose whether the amended law should apply or the un-amended law. HELD deciding in favour of the assessee:
(i) In Govinddas 103 ITR 123 (SC) it was held that unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matter of procedure. If the enactment is ambiguous in language, which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be considered as prospective only.
(ii) Applying this principle, the amended s. 74 is applicable to computation of loss under the head “Capital Gains” for AY 2003-04 and onwards. As regards loss of earlier years, the law as it then stood gave a vested right of set off the loss against all capital gains. There is nothing in the amendment which withdraws the said vested right. Consequently, the loss can be set off against short-term capital gains despite the amendment.
Note: In
Reliance Jute and Industries 120 ITR 921 (SC) it was held that though the 1922 Act provided for an indefinite period of carry forward of business loss, the limitation of 8 years imposed by the 1961 Act would apply and the assessee could
not claim a ‘vested right’.
Per contra, in
Shah Sadiq 166 ITR 102 (SC) it was held that the right given by the 1922 Act to carry forward the losses of speculation business was an “accrued and vested right” which had to be granted even after the repeal of the Act.
Related Posts:
- Cavalier Trading Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) In the instant case, what we notice is that not only was there no mistake apparent from the record but in the garb of the Misc. Application, petitioner had sought for review of the final order passed by the Tribunal and for rehearing of the appeal which is not permissible…
- Kaybee Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 92A(2) governs the operation of Section 92A(1) by controlling the definition of participation in management or capital or control by one of the enterprise in the other enterprise. If a form of participation in management, capital or control is not recognized by Section 92A(2), even if it ends up…
- Unnikrishnan V S vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that so far as the ESOP benefit is concerned, while the income has arisen to the assessee in the current year, admittedly the related rights were granted to the assessee in 2007 and in consideration for the services which were rendered by the assessee prior to the rights…
- Karmic Labs Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 56 allows the assessees to adopt one of the methods of their choice. But, the AO held that the assessee should have adopted only one method for determining the value of the shares. In our opinion, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO to insist upon a particular…
- Volkswagen Finance Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) business models are constantly evolving, and as the rapid communication modes such as internet and social media have completely transformed the way businesses communicate, it is time that the law is seen in tandem with the ground realities of the business world, rather than in the strict confines of what…
- DCIT vs. JSW Limited (ITAT Mumbai) In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by…
Recent Comments