1. M/s. Bharati Shipyard Limited Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 2404/Mum/2009 :Asst Year 2005-2006, Date of Pronouncement : 09.09.2011, ITAT – Mumbai
The amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) by the FA 2010 was made retrospectively applicable only from AY 2010-11 and not earlier. It is nowhere stated that the amendment is curative or declaratory in nature nor is such an intention discernible. Ordinarily, a substantive provision is prospective in operation and courts cannot give it retrospective effect except in limited circumstances where, say, the amendment makes explicit what was earlier implicit or where the amendment was to remove unintended consequences in the existing provision and to make it workable. A provision giving relief cannot be regarded as retrospective only because the original provision caused hardship to the assessee. S. 40(a)(i) caused intended difficulty with the object of discouraging non-compliance with the TDS provisions. A partial relaxation in its rigor, inserted with prospective effect, cannot be treated as retrospective.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Arijit Ghosh Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of I.T., ITA No. 01 (Kol) of 2011, Assessment Year 2005-06, Date : 26.08.2011, ITAT – Kol
In view of above sworn statement before the A.O., in our considered opinion, without bringing on record any contradictory material against the above deposition of Sri Pal, the revenue authorities were not justified to consider the said bank account as belonging to the assessee, when once it is established beyond doubt that all transactions in the said bank account are reflected by Sri Pal. Therefore, we are of the view that the addition made by the A.O. and further sustained by the ld. C.I.T(A) to the extent of peak credit are not in accordance with law and the same is deleted. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee in this respect are allowed and that of the department is dismissed.
(Please click here for judgment)
Key of Success :
"Make detailed action plans for achieving the goals"
New User? 
Subscribe Now