M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT

436 ITR 582Supreme Court of India2021#250 most cited

What is M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT authority for?

Amendments to tax law that impose new obligations or change existing legal positions apply prospectively, even if stated to be "for the removal of doubts." The judgment also clarifies that deductions under Section 43B are allowed only on actual payment, overriding the mercantile system of accounting.

308

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

M.M.Aqua Technologies Ltd v. CIT · 436 ITR 582 · section 43B · section 14A · section 36(1)(va) · prospective amendment · retrospective amendment · clarificatory amendment · actual payment deduction · new obligation tax law.

Also reported as

129 Taxmann.com 145282 Taxmann 281

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 115JBSection 8DSection 80IASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(ii)employees contribution to pfsection 2(24)(x)section 2(24)clarificatory amendmentsection 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 36(va)section 43b(b)section 43section 36assistant director

Judgments citing M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 638/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 637/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…

M/S. Zion Hospitals and Research Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Zion Hospitals & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 9, “Le Villa”, Commissioner Of Kirti Layout, Income Tax, Kammanahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 084. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacz4369G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Loss Of Appellant In The Intimation U/S. 143[1] Of The Act, At Rs. 63,89,502/-As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 43B

…stion is whether the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…

S N Balasubramaniya, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep C, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Technocon Builders, The Deputy # 337, Sf 8, Commissioner Of Karuna Complex, Income Tax, Sampige Road, Circle - 2 (2)(1), Malleshwaram, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Aaift3196L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajagopal, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Without Jurisdiction, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…stion is whether the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…

Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 58/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee wo…

Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 57/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee wo…

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…

M/S. Canadian International School Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. M/s. Canadian International Sch…

Transact Bpo Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee wo…

Indauto Filters, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. Gururaj Acharya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee wo…

N. T. Rahamathulla Khan Associates, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 44/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee wo…

Channa Keshava, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.N.Shyanbhog, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…

High Tensile Fastnuts (India) P..Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1572/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale&, Shri Gagan Goyalhigh Tensile Fastnuts Vs. Dcit – Cpc (India) Pvt Ltd., Bangalore, 601, 6Th Floor, Karnataka-560100 Goldcrest Business Park, Opposite Shreyas Cinema, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai – 400086. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1190D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Mehul Shah.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul Shah.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…stion is whether the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…

Mangilal Padamchand, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Harish, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…

M/S. Pilvo Communications Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 716/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Prashanth G.S., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…

N.R. Kumaraswamy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Mrinalini R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee wo…

Tandem Allied Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 750/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sachin Metha, ARFor Respondent: Sri.D.Kiran, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…

Tandem Allied Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 749/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sachin Metha, ARFor Respondent: Sri.D.Kiran, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee w…