Cit v vatika township

Author: wkpo

August undefined, 2024

Web• 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.

CIT VS VATIKA TOWNSHIP PVT LTD (2015) 1 SCC 1 - StuDocu

WebThe 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 … WebCIT VS VATIKA TOWNSHIP PVT LTD (2015) 1 SCC 1 Whether the surcharge levied by way of inserion of the proviso to secion 113 of the income Tax Act 1961, by the … incan light

Clarificatory amendments to Indian tax laws: Retrospective levies …

http://saprlaw.com/taxblog/retrospective_amendments.pdf WebOct 24, 2024 · CST, [1985 Supp SCC 205] and CIT v. 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 at which the tax is imposed; and Measure or value to which the rate will be applied for computing the tax … WebMay 15, 2024 · In CIT v. Vatika Township (2014) 367 ITR466 (SC) (Five Judges Bench) Levy of surcharge on block assessment years pertaining prior to ist June 2002 is held to … includes republicans and democrats

Role of Equitable Doctrines in Fiscal Laws SCC Blog

The validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act - CAclubindia

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. Web• CIT v. Vatika Township (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) (5-judges) “If the concerned provision of the taxing statute is ambiguous and vague and is susceptible to two interpretations, the … includes salesforceWebJan 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. includes ruby

"WebDec 3, 2024 · The Supreme Court of India, in CIT v Vatika Township (P) Ltd (2015), held that a new legislation ought not to change the character of past transactions carried out upon the faith of the then existing law. Therefore, the Act, being a substantial new legislation, ought to operate prospectively. " - Cit v vatika township

Cit v vatika township

Is it constitutional to apply RERA with retrospective effect?

Webvatika infotech city 𝐉𝐃𝐀 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐮𝐱𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐥𝐥 ... WebJan 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 …

Did you know?

WebTownship County Carlyle Township: Allen County: Cottage Grove Township: Allen County: Deer Creek Township: Allen County: Elm Township: Allen County: Elsmore Township 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 …

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 … 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 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. WebOct 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...

WebThe Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division …

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. includes share functions翻译WebIndian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law includes shippingWebMar 10, 2024 · 1. CIT vs. S. Sripal Reddy (2013) In this case, the court held that a genuine transaction cannot be disregarded on the ground of mere suspicion. 2. CIT vs. Vatika … incan manWebNov 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. includes relationship in use case diagramWebMar 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 … includes sampWebSep 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 … includes roundtrip flight with extra luggageWebApr 9, 2024 · One such pronouncement is CIT v. Vatika Township Private Limited [TS-573-SC-2014] wherein Hon'ble Supreme court had ruled that retrospective amendments should be there in order to solve problems of the taxpayers and not of the department. Hence, this retrospective amendment is increasing the hardship of the taxpayers, which is not right in … incan math