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

Home › All Judgements › Geetanjali Trading vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Geetanjali Trading vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (geetanjali_vested_right_set_off_losses.pdf)

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…
  • V.R.Enterprises vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents and the payments to the suppliers was through banking channels. The assessee had established corresponding sales before Ld. AO. The books of accounts were audited wherein quantitative details of stock was provided. We are of the considered opinion that there could…
  • 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…
  • Anandkumar Jain vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) It is also well – settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a ‘new rule’ but to maintain and expound the ‘old one’. In other words, the Judges do not make law; they only discover or…

Related Judgements

  1. Shri. Ranjeet Singh vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    Where the assessee was assessed at Delhi but a notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO in Ghaziabad and the assessee had protested the usurpation of jurisdiction from the beginningRead more ›
  2. J. M. Share & Stock Brokers vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the assessee was a stock broker but it was consistently following the practice of holding some shaes as ‘stock in trade’ and other shares as ‘investments’ and the question arose whether the profits on the sale of shares held as investments constituted a capital gain or business profits,…
  3. DDIT vs. Stock Engineer Contractor (ITAT Bombay) 

    No Permanent Establishment if only personnel supplied. (1) Where a Malaysian company supplied technical personnel to the assessee (a Dutch company) on terms that the personnel would remain under the control of the assessee and that the Malaysian company would … DDIT vs. Stock Engineer Contractor (ITAT Bombay)…
  4. Kanbay Software vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 

    The judgement in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors has to be understood in the correct perspective. It does not make a radical change in the law nor does it affect the basic scheme of s. 271 (1) (c). Even in K P Madhusudanan vs. CIT 251 ITR 99, the…
  5. DCIT vs. Vertex Customer Services (ITAT Delhi) 

    Expl. 7 to s. 271 (1) (c) provides that in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction, any amount added or disallowed in computing the total income u/s 92C (4) shall for purposes of s. 271 (1) (c) be deemed to represent income in…