NDLI: Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai Vs. M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through Its Manager

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Principle of presumption Income Tax Maxims – “nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis” Interpretation of Statutes
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Income Tax Rules (0 of 1962)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Income Tax Rules, 1962 – r.8D – Said rule providing for machinery to give effect to charging section, i.e. s.14A, Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Nature of operation – Prospective or Retrospective – Plea of appellant-revenue that charging section i.e. s.14A being retrospective, the machinery provision,i.e. r.8D has also to be retrospective – Held: Provisions of s.14A, inserted by Finance Act, 2001, were fully workable without there being any mechanism provided for computing the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income – Sub-sections (2) and (3), providing to determine the amount of such expenditure, were inserted by amendment in s.14A by Finance Act, 2006 – Memorandum explaining the provision in Finance Bill, 2006, clearly mentioned that amendments brought by Finance Bill, 2006 would take effect from 01.04.2007 – Circular dtd. 28.12.2006 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) itself also provided that sub-sections (2) and (3) of s.14A were to be implemented w.e.f. 2007-08 – Further, r.8D was inserted in 1962 Rules by notification dtd. 24.03.2008 indicating that the new method provided thereunder for computing the expenditure was to be utilized for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and onwards – There is no indication in r.8D that it was intended to apply retrospectively – Thus, applying the principles of statutory interpretation for interpreting retrospectivity of a fiscal statute and looking into the nature and purpose of sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s.14A as well as purpose and intent of r.8D coupled with the explanatory memorandum in the Finance Bill, 2006 and the departmental understanding as reflected by Circular dated 28.12.2006, it is clear that r.8D was intended to operate prospectively – Interpretation of Statutes – Income Tax Act, 1961 – Finance Act, 2001 – Finance Act, 2006 – Income Tax (14th Amendment Rules, 2016) – Circulars/Notifications – Circular No. 14/2006 dtd. 28.12.2006.Interpretation of Statutes – Nature of operation – Prospective or retrospective – Held: Every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation – However, mere date of enforcement of statutory provisions does not lead to the conclusion that the statute is prospective in nature.Maxims – “nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis” – Principle of presumption of prospectivity of a statute – Discussed.Interpretation of Statutes – Machinery provision of a taxing statute – Prospective or retrospective – Held: Applicability of the machinery provision whether it is prospective or retrospective depends on the content and nature of the statutory scheme.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Neutral Citation	2018 INSC 79
Petitioner	Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 Mumbai
Respondent	M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through Its Manager
SCR	[2018] 1 S.C.R. 502
Judgement Date	2018-01-31
Case Number	2165

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai Vs. M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through Its Manager

Please Log-in to view this content

Oxford University Press Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Fiat India (p) Ltd. & Anr.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Jindal Steel & Power Limited Through Its Managing Director

Commissioner of Customs (imports), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Tullow India Operations Ltd.

M/s. State Bank of Patiala Through General Manager Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala

Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Daman! Brothers

Performing Right Society Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax & Others

M/s Topman Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Commissioner of Income Tax-19 Mumbai. Vs. M/s. Sarkar Builders

Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai Vs. M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through Its Manager

Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai Vs. M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through Its Manager

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Oxford University Press Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Fiat India (p) Ltd. & Anr.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Jindal Steel & Power Limited Through Its Managing Director

Commissioner of Customs (imports), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Tullow India Operations Ltd.

M/s. State Bank of Patiala Through General Manager Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala

Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Daman! Brothers

Performing Right Society Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax & Others

M/s Topman Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Commissioner of Income Tax-19 Mumbai. Vs. M/s. Sarkar Builders

Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai Vs. M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through Its Manager