2011 (7) TMI 572

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Tribunal which held that proviso to section 113 which was inserted by Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-6-2002 does not have retrospective application, therefore, the surcharge levied on the assessee is not leviable and therefore, it preferred to delete surcharge. Aggrieved by the said order. Revenue has preferred ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar in which the search is initiated, which date would be relevant for applicability of a particular FA. Therefore, we have to read the proviso as it stands. 38. There is one more reason for rejecting the above submission. Prior to 1st June, 2002, in several cases, tax was prescribed sometimes in the 1961 Act and sometimes in FA and often in both. This made liability uncertain. In the present, c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Assessing Officer and it is hereby set aside. 3. However, in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2009] 314 ITR 338/178 Taxman 322 after referring to the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment, The larger Bench of the Apex Court was at the view that the aforesaid judgment requires to be considered by a larger Bench and accordingly, a direction was issued by the Registry to place the matter ....