2020 (2) TMI 463

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh N.Gupta (297 ITR 32). 2.The said judgment of Suresh N.Gupta came to be reversed later on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29th October, 2014 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore Vs. K.Raheja Hotels & Estate (P.) Ltd., [(2015) 228 Taxman 5 (SC)]. The relevant portions of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Raheja Hotels & Estate (P.) Ltd., are quoted below for ready reference: "Thus, it was a conscious decision of the legislature, even when the legislature knew the implication thereof and took note of the reasons which led to the insertion of the proviso, that the amendment is to operate prospectively. L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st day of July, 1995. When it comes to amendment to Section 113 of the Act, this very circular provides that the said amendment along with amendments in Section 158BE, would be prospective i.e. it will take effect from 1st June, 2002. (f) Finance Act, 2003, again makes the position clear that surcharge in respect of block assessment of undisclosed income was made prospective. Such a stipulation is contained in second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 2 of Finance Act, 2003. This priviso reads as under: "Provided further that the amount of income-tax computed in accordance with the provisions of section 113 shall be increased by a surcharge for purposes of the Union as provided in Paragraph A, B, C, D or E, as the case ....