REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KATIRA CONSTRUCTION LTD Appellant

V/S

Union of India And Ors Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

STAR INDIA P. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. UNITED MOTORS INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MADAN GOPAL KABRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MADAN GOPAL KABRA [REFERRED TO]
HAMDARD DAWAKHANA KALIPADA DEB LAKSHMAN SHRIPATI LTPURE ALIAS LAKSHMAN SHRI PATI IMPORE A B CHOUDHRI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTING CO OF INDIA LIMITED STANDARD VACUUM OIL CO VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
J K JUTE MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SUDHINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR VS. COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. KARTAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA VS. G DASS AND CO [REFERRED TO]
JALAN TRADING CO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MILL MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
BIHTA CO OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND CANE MARKETING UNION LIMITED VS. BANK OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND DATTATRAY KELKAR VS. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS [REFERRED TO]
DATTATRAYA GOVIND MAHAJAN STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH STATE OF PUNJAB NAGAORAO MAROTRAO INGOLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:RAJESH PACHAURI:SUCHA SINGHS:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
D CAWASJI AND CO MYSORE VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
LOHIA MACHINES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
P M ASHWATHANARAYANA SETTY LAVINA MANSIONS A ABDUL RAHIM SHERIF G RAMIAH CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STATE BANK OF INDIA BANK OF BARODA S MOHMOOD IQBAL STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DR PRAFULLA CHANDRA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
ELEL HOTELS AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
APHALI PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KESHAVJI RAVJI AND CO VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASA THEATRE VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU [REFERRED TO]
Y P CHAWLA VS. M P TIWARI [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH PHOTOGRAPHICS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. JALYAN UDYOG [REFERRED TO]
ENTERTAINMENT TAX OFFICER VS. AMBAE PICTURE PALACE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. ANANTHI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MCDOWELL AND CO [REFERRED TO]
TATA MOTORS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER SINGH HOODA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
COMMNR OF INCOME TAX I AHMEDABAD VS. GOLD COIN HEALTH FOOD PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. RAKESH KOHLI [REFERRED TO]
ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF SURAT [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions arise out of common background. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of this judgment, facts stated in Special Civil Application No.11781 of 2009 may be adopted.

(2.) Petitioner has challenged the vires of explanation inserted in Sub -Section (4) of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act,1961 ("the Act" for short) by Finance Act No.2 of 2009. Sub -Section (4) of Section 80IA of the Act, as is well known, provides for certain deduction of income from the eligible business and primarily pertains to infrastructure development. By adding the impugned explanation, the Legislature provided that that nothing contained in the Section shall apply in relation to a business referred to in Sub -Section (4) which is in the nature of a works contract awarded by any person and executed by an undertaking or enterprise. This explanation is added with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000. It is this amendment which has given rise to the present controversy.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that it is engaged in the business of developing infrastructure. Till introduction of the impugned amendment, deductions were available to all undertakings and enterprises executing infrastructure development projects and it was not insisted that the assessee itself must develop such infrastructure facilities by investing its own funds. Such explanation, therefore, changes the very complexion of the deductions which were available for years together and, thus creates a levy with retrospective effect. The petitioner challenges such explanation on various grounds. In particular, the grievance is against the retrospective operation of such amendment.

Click here to view full judgment.

KATIRA CONSTRUCTION LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address