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 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

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2273/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…e fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts".' (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 145/282 Taxman 281/436 ITR 582. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:— "22. Second, a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. This was stated in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CI…

Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 774/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Miss. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 36Section 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 6 Sri Rajanikanth Reddy. (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. D…

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 771/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITP
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 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…

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 770/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITP
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 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…

M/S. Optimal Strategix Consulting Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 842/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 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…

Shri Umesh Raosaheb Pawar, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Thane

In the result, Ground No.2

ITA 1901/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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…

Bharat Silks, Bangalore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 683/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 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…

Arnold Consulting Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 712/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, 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…

Zynga Game Network India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 693/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Zynga Game Network Vs Dcit, Circle -7(1)(1) India Pvt. Ltd. Bmtc Building, 80 Feet Road No. 19, Prestige Falcon Tower Koramangala 4Th & 5Th Floor, Brunton Bengaluru 560095 Road, Richmond Town Bengaluru 560025 Pan – Aaacz3937G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10054666 Dated 16.06.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc / Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A)"] Has Erred In Disallowing The Delayed Remittance Of The Employees Contribution To Pf Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Remitted The Same Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. CIT-DR
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…

Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 577/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Rajanikanth Reddy Vs The Income Tax Officer- 4(2)(2) No.21, 14Th Main, Venkateshwara Bengaluru Layout, Madiwala Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Ablpr5981K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Bengaluru-4/10069/2020-21 Dated 25.05.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order 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 Income Of Appellant In The Order U/S. 154 Of The Act, At Rs. 1,92,26,970/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 1,09,63,817/-, Under The Normal Provisions, On Account Of The Disallowance Of Rs. 82,63,148/- Made U/S.36[1][Va] Of The Act, Based Upon The Details In The Tax Audit

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 36Section 43BSection 44A

…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…

Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, this ground is allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.B Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 14ASection 194HSection 40

…e fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts".' (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 145/282 Taxman 281/436 ITR 582. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:— "22. Second, a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. This was stated in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CI…

Sri Family Biznet Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 590/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, 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…

Amritsar Swadeshi Textile Corporation, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Amritsar

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

ITA 175/ASR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 175/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Amritsar Swadeshi Textile Vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Ram Ward-2(1), Amritsar. Tirath Road, Amritsar. [PAN:AAFCA0627F] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 158/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Satish Jain, M/s Jain Industries Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, M/s R.R. Medicare, Kathorli, Jammu. Bari Brahamana Jammu. [PAN:ABLPJ6598A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 168/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21…

Trg Industries Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

ITA 170/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 175/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Amritsar Swadeshi Textile Vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Ram Ward-2(1), Amritsar. Tirath Road, Amritsar. [PAN:AAFCA0627F] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 158/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Satish Jain, M/s Jain Industries Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, M/s R.R. Medicare, Kathorli, Jammu. Bari Brahamana Jammu. [PAN:ABLPJ6598A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 168/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21…

Sant Valves Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

ITA 168/ASR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 175/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Amritsar Swadeshi Textile Vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Ram Ward-2(1), Amritsar. Tirath Road, Amritsar. [PAN:AAFCA0627F] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 158/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Satish Jain, M/s Jain Industries Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, M/s R.R. Medicare, Kathorli, Jammu. Bari Brahamana Jammu. [PAN:ABLPJ6598A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 168/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21…

Sh. Satish Jain, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

ITA 158/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 175/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Amritsar Swadeshi Textile Vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Ram Ward-2(1), Amritsar. Tirath Road, Amritsar. [PAN:AAFCA0627F] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 158/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Satish Jain, M/s Jain Industries Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, M/s R.R. Medicare, Kathorli, Jammu. Bari Brahamana Jammu. [PAN:ABLPJ6598A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 168/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21…

M/S. Ukn Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1739/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(vii)

…fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts".' (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 145/282 Taxman 281/436 ITR 582. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:— "22. Second, a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. This was stated in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CI…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

…e fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts".' (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 145/282 Taxman 281/436 ITR 582. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:— "22. Second, a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. This was stated in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CI…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

…e fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts".' (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 145/282 Taxman 281/436 ITR 582. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:— "22. Second, a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. This was stated in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CI…

Toyota Tsusho India Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 175/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts".' (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 145/282 Taxman 281/436 ITR 582. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:— "22. Second, a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. This was stated in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CI…