How many judgments cite M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT?

308 judgments on BharatTax cite M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT (436 ITR 582), spanning 2021 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 8D, Section 80IA, Section 36(1)(vii).

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 366,005 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 14A Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 8D Section 80IA Section 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 pf section 2(24)(x)section 2(24)clarificatory amendment section 36(1)(va)section 43b section 36(va)section 43b(b)section 43 section 36 assistant director

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

M/S. Environs Management (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 420/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)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. Infobells Inferactive Solutions, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 411/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Infobells Interactive Solutions, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.12, 2Nd Floor, 8Th V Block, Circle – 4(3)(1), K R Nanjappa Layout, Vs. Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aacfi 7614 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 43B

…r question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Actby 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…

Ef Site Technologies Private Limited, Benglauru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 387/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Amrit Raj Singh, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 436Section 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…

Shakuntala Agarbathi Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

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

ITA 385/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Nishi Padma, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.385/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2019-2020 M/s.Shakuntala Agarbathi The Dy.Commissioner of Company, 123, I Main Road Income-tax (CPC) v. Bengaluru. 7th Cross Chamrajpet Bengaluru – 560 018. PAN : AAOFS8230J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Smt.Nishi Padma, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2021 Date of Hearing : 20.10.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dat…

Focus Consultancy Services, Bengaluru vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 60/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shree Hari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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 EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee wo…

M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 315/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

M/S. the Contenental Restaurant & Cafe Co., Bengaluru vs. Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore

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

ITA 388/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “SMC-C” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Judicial Member ITA No.388/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2019-2020 M/s.The Continental Restaurant The Income Tax Officer & Café Co., #13 Museum Road Ward 1(2)(1) v. Bengaluru. Behind Museum Road Post Office Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN : AAKFT0249A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 Date of Hearing : 08.10.2021 O R D E R This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order d…

Bevel Gears (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 376/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Gururaj Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “SMC-B” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Judicial Member ITA No.376/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/s.Bevel Gears (India) Pvt.Ltd. The Asst.Commissioner of 17B Whitefield Road Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(2) v. Bengaluru. Sadaramangala Industrial Area Mahadevapura Post Bengaluru – 560 048. PAN : AAACB5722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Gururaj Acharya, CA Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 Date of Hearing : 08.10.2021 O R D E R This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed aga…