Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar

8 SCC 24Supreme Court of India2001#308 most cited

What is Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar authority for?

A statutory explanation that is clarificatory in nature applies retrospectively from the date the main provision came into force. However, if an explanation changes the law, it is not presumed to be retrospective, even if phrases like 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts' are used.

263

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar · 223 ITR 825 · 8 SCC 24 · retrospective application · statutory explanation · clarificatory amendment · legislative intent · removal of doubts · change in law · statutory interpretation

Also reported as

223 ITR 825

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 1894Section 8DSection 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 9(1)(ii)section 23(1a)section 104section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 194lakeyman insurancesection 160

Judgments citing Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

ITA 992/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…section - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P. ) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'. 21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1) (ii…

BHUPINDER SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

ITA 528/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)…

BALBIR SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, SIRSA, HARYANA

ITA 483/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n57\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared'\nor 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section…

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 458/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)…

SAT PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), , CHANDIGARH

ITA 243/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared'\nor 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)…

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

ITA 165/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)…

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

ITA 153/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared'\nor 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)…

GURDEEP SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

ITA 1153/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n57\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9…

JARNAIL SINGH,VILLAGE BHAGWANPUR, KALKA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

ITA 1025/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)…

BALJEET KAUR,NADI MOHALLA AMBALA CITY vs. ITO WARD 1, AMBALA, AMBALA

ITA 92/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared'\nor 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)…

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

ITA 876/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…section - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P. ) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'. 21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1) (ii…

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

ITA 663/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Respondent: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n\n59\n\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared'\nor 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of sect…

ANJU,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) , MOHALI

ITA 563/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n57\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared'\nor 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

ITA 531/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…section - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P. ) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'. 21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1) (ii…

SARVAN SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 4, AMBALA

ITA 458/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared'\nor 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)…

SAMAY SINGH,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO-WARD (5), YAMUNANAGAR

ITA 435/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE BARNALA vs. LAKHVIR SINGH, GRAIN MARKET, BARNALA

ITA 245/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n57\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9…

RAJBIR SINGH,VILL. GARHI BANJARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

ITA 208/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or\n'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)…

BALJIT SINGH,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

ITA 176/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

…tion - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR\n1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must\nbe read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main\nprovision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij\nMohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P.\n57\n) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be\nretrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared'\nor 'for the removal of doubts'.\n21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section…

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

ITA 172/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…section - Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force. Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24, Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 1 SCC 352, 354, CIT v. Podar Cement (P. ) Ltd. [1997] 5 SCC 482, 506. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'. 21. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1) (ii…

Showing 1–20 of 263 · Page 1 of 14

...