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 366,339 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

Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Astt. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore [DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai]

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1838/MUM/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhemkay Facilities Vs. Acit (Cpc), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [Dcit Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

Smt. Nanjamma, Bengaluru vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 160/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 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…

Smt. Nanjamma, Bengaluru vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 159/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 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…

People Management Services, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 94/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bharghava S.N., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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…

M/S. Skava Electric Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(CPC), Bengaluru

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

ITA 79/BANG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Kusuma Yatish, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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…

M/S. Deliveryontime Logistics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax-CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 144/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankr, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Priyadarshi 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 M/s. Deliveryontime Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 7 earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in th…

M/S. Universal Bottler Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 141/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shanthappa, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…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. Page 5 of 6 ITA Nos. 140 &…

M/S. Universal Bottler Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 140/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shanthappa, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…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. Page 5 of 6 ITA Nos. 140 &…

Rajendran Sudagar, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 13/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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…

M/S. Necron It Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 102/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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…

M/S. Nalpak Restaurants, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Mysore

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

ITA 10/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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…

M/S. Hexagon Global It Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 685/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2019-20

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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…

Brindavan Roller Flour Mills Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 680/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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…

Suresha, Ududpi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 70/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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…

Hattigowda Narasegowda, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1) Through the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 5/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Verghese, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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…

Chandramouli, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 4/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sachin H.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
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…

Chandramouli, Mysore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sachin H.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
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…

M/S. Brush Tech India, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sachin H.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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…

Shantha Rao Gujju, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 158/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
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…

Shantha Rao Gujju, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 157/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
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…