Cit v vatika township

Author: npll

August undefined, 2024

Webi) CIT .v. Vatika Township Pvt. Limited [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) ii) Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd., .v. ACIT (2016) 389 ITR 373, Delhi HC B. RETROSPECTIVITY … WebSep 26, 2014 · 1 CIT v. Vatika Township Private Limited [TS-573-SC-2014] the circular 2of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) was …

Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

WebJan 10, 2009 · In CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta 297 ITR 322, the Supreme Court held that the Provio to s. 113 (which imposes surcharge on block assessments), though inserted only with effect from 1.6.2002, was applicable to searches conducted prior to that date as it was ‘clarificatory’ and ‘curative’ in nature. WebNov 3, 2024 · Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., reported in 367 ITR 466 wherein it was held that provision for levy of surcharge on income tax in the case of block assessment is not clarificatory and therefore not retrospective in operation. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. hif3a基因

Interest U/S 234 B & 234C is not applicable for 44 AD income for ...

WebJul 7, 2024 · [Refer: CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd.: 367 ITR 466 (SC)]. In the present law, section 1 of the Act is ex-facie clear in stating that the law shall come into force on 1 st July, 2015 and as per section 3, charge of tax is from assessment year 2016-17 and onwards. WebVatika Township Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) Section 206AA(1)(iii) simply provides for deduction of tax 'at the rate of twenty percent.' Unlike Section 113 and other provisions as discussed above, there is no mention for the levy of any surcharge, education cess, etc. on such rate of 20 per cent. WebJan 31, 2024 · ITAT set aside the order of CIT (A) and restored the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication without invoking the provisions of Rule 8D. Against the order of ITAT, the revenue filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court following its earlier judgment of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. hif3ba

Role of Equitable Doctrines in Fiscal Laws SCC Blog

When the term ‘royalty’ is defined under the India-Singapore …

WebThe tax department relied on the decision of Vatika Township5and contended that the insertion of Explanation 5 and 6, though by the virtue of the Finance Act, 2012, is only a declaratory and clarificatory amendment explaining the law as existing from 1 June 1976. WebSupreme Court - Daily Orders Commr.Of Income Tax-I,New Delhi vs Vatika Township P.Ltd. on 15 September, 2014 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA … hif3a geneWebNov 21, 2024 · The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “CIT v Vatika Township Pvt Ltd2, while dealing with retrospectivity of legislation, quoted G.P Singh’s Principles of Statutory interpretation, which is as under: “If a new Act is ‘to explain’ an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospective. how far is 21 meters in feet

"WebSep 10, 2010 · It is Shri Chandan Basu who has to bear the cost of construction. ON the basis this statement stand of the assessee could be that Rs. 81 lacs was to come from … " - Cit v vatika township

Cit v vatika township

Transsys Solutions Pvt Ltd, ... vs Cit(A),Nfac, Delhi on 31 January, …

WebNov 23, 2024 · Relying upon the spirit of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 249, the Tribunal held that if a fresh benefit is provided by the Parliament in an existing provision, then such an amendment should be given retrospective effect. WebJan 21, 2024 · Vatika Township (P) Ltd.[9] that “The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the …

Did you know?

http://www.in.kpmg.com/taxflashnews/KPMG-Flash-News-Computer-Sciences-Corporation-India-P-Ltd-2.pdf WebJun 5, 2024 · You may refer to CIT v. Vatika Township Private Limited 2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT wherein the SC has clarified prospective and retrospective operation of tax amendments elaborately. Since this amendment is not beneficial to assessee, under the normal rule of presumption, the amendment will not have a retrospective effect. 1 Post …

WebSep 16, 2014 · CIT vs. Vatika Township (Supreme Court – Full Bench) – itatonline.org. Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free … WebCIT Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited: The honourable Supreme Court provided clarity on Prospective versus Retrospective operation of tax amendments in CIT v. Vatika …

WebMay 15, 2024 · In the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (Para 9) held that where assessee company made payment of employees … http://saprlaw.com/taxblog/retrospective_amendments.pdf

WebIndian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

WebMar 10, 2024 · CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2015) The court held that the revenue cannot disregard a transaction that is genuine and bonafide. 3. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) In this case, the court held that a mere change of opinion by the assessing officer cannot be a reason for reopening of an assessment. 4. CIT vs. Alom Extrusions … how far is 219 miles in hoursWebJul 6, 2016 · Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Where there is a letting out of premises and collection of rents the assessment on property basis may be correct but not so, where the letting or sub-letting is part of a trading operation. hif3abWebIt is contained in CBDT circular No.8 of 2002 dated 27th August, 2002, with the subject “Finance Act, 2002 – Explanatory Notes on provision relating to Direct Taxes”. This … hif3ba-14d-2.54c 63Web• CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyyengar (1975) 101 ITR 764 (SC) “The hypothetical illustration which was cited before the Income-tax Officer and which is relied upon by the High Court may at the highest, if its fundamental premise is true, show that the interpretation canvassed by the Revenue may conceivably work out injustice. hif3aWebThe tax department relied on the decision of Vatika Township5 and contended that the insertion of Explanation 5 and 6, though by the virtue of the Finance Act, 2012, is only a … hif3a4WebOct 18, 2024 · Vatika Township Private Limited, [ (2015) 1 SCC 1] wherein the following had to be specified: Taxable event attracting the levy; Clear indication of the person on whom the levy is imposed; Rate... hif3ba-10pd-2.54r-mcWebJan 2, 2024 · A five-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Vatika Township [17] traversed through competing jurisprudential theories to declare the need to balance the … hif3a-40d-2.54r