MG METALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer could not have issued the notices relying on the Explanation to Section 14A of the Act, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2022. The Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that unless a provision explicitly states it is operational from a retrospective date, it cannot be given retrospective effect, including any explanation. The judgment in Era Infrastructure (supra) was found to be categorical on this point. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned notices dated April 26, 2024, and December 28, 2023, along with the corresponding reasons under Section 148A(d), were quashed and set aside. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, MG Metalloy Private Limited, filed writ petitions challenging notices dated April 26, 2024, and December 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These notices sought to disallow the petitioner's expenditure, purportedly based on an amendment to Section 14A of the Act by way of the Finance Act, 2022, which inserted an Explanation. The assessment years involved were AY 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The petitioner argued the amendment was prospective, while the revenue contended it was clarificatory and retrospective. The High Court considered the arguments and the judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/s Era Infrastructure (India).
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Explanation inserted to Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2022, is retrospective in nature and applicable to assessment years prior to its enactment. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the amendment, including the Explanation to Section 14A, was prospective and intended to apply from Assessment Year 2022-2023 onwards. They relied on the explanatory memorandum accompanying the amendment and the High Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/s Era Infrastructure (India). Revenue's Contentions: The respondents contended that the Explanation was introduced to clarify existing doubts and should be applied retrospectively. They also submitted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment in Era Infrastructure (supra), and notice had been issued.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
By way of the present writ petition(s) preferred under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notices dated 26.04.2024 and 28.12.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), seeking to disallow the expenditure of the petitioner, even though there was no exempt income. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/01/2026 at 12:16:58
The basis for which the notices impugned were issued was, the amendment brought in Section 14A of the Act of 1961 by way of Amendment Act, 2022, whereby Explanation was inserted to Section 14A of the Act of 1961. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the explanatory memorandum issued while introducing the Amendment clearly shows that the amendment was prospective in nature and the same was to be applied from Assessment Year (AY) 2022-2023, whereas, the assessment year involved in those cases are AY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/s Era Infrastructure (India) in ITA 204/2022 decided on 20.07.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that a look at the Explanation clearly shows that the same was introduced with the view to clarify the doubt (if any), else the position was clear. He further argued that looking to the provision, the Explanation should apply retrospectively. In relation to the judgement in the case of Era Infrastructure (supra), learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Department has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, wherein notice has been issued.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the respondent no.1-Assessing Officer could not have issued notice to the petitioner relying upon the Explanation to Section 14A of the Act of 1961, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2022. 6. It is a settled proposition of law that unless the provisions specifically makes it operational from a retrospective date, any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/01/2026 at 12:16:58
provision including explanation cannot be given retrospective effect. That apart, the judgment in the case of Era Infrastructure (supra) is categoric on this point.
These writ petitions are, therefore, allowed. Notices dated 26.04.2024 and 28.12.2023 impugned in these petitions so also the reasons corresponding thereto, under Section 148A(d) are hereby quashed and set aside. DINESH MEHTA, J. VINOD KUMAR, J. JANUARY 7, 2026/cd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/01/2026 at 12:16:58
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026