Case Law Details
Case Name : CIT Vs M/s. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. Etc. (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : AIR 1997 SC 2523, 1997 226 ITR 625 SC
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/05/1997
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
Supreme Court of India
Sponsored
Issue : – The respondent in Tax References Cases Nos. 9-10 of 1986 is a company and an assessee under the Act (hereinafter called the “assessee”). It owns four flats bearing Nos. 231, 232, 241 and 242 in a building called “Silver Arch” on Nepean Sea Road, Bombay. The bui
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
On a mindful reading of the SC Judgment, and according to one’s understanding,some of the arguments, reasonings, and observations as set out therein , call for a critical analysis. For example: The suggestion / reasoning to the effect that the 1988 amendments, such as Sec 27 (iiib) of IT Act , though, as legislated,in terms,introduced and made effective only from ist April,1988,could nonetheless be conside4red to have a retrospective effect.If one’s unerstanding is right,then the referred suggestion/view seems to offend the very basic understanding and common belief all along, with support also from case law, that any such amendment or modification of a substantive nature, enacted specifically wef the first day of an asseessment year can only apply to that assessmentb year, and onwards; not backwords.More so, when such a stance, none of the parties to the dispute seem to have taken or pressed for.
> Over to law experts in field vpractice, for an insightful deliberation, and exchange of thoughts, for servig the common good.