Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar

8 SCC 24Supreme Court of India2001#314 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 366,470 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

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 198/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…, (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598 : AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24] . 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); 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 phrases used are “it is declared” or "for the removal of doubts". (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has bee…

Rajapalayam Mills Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

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

ITA 1251/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1251/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Rajapalayam Mills Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Post Box No. 1, Rajapalayam Mills Income Tax, Premises, P.A.C. Ramasamy Raja Corporate Circle, Salai, Rajapalayam, Madurai. Virudhunagar 626 117. [Pan: Aaacr8897F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Pcit Is Justified In Directing The Assessing Officer For Working Out Disallowance Under Section 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 2Section 263

…., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598: AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24] . 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); 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 phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts"." (emphasis supplied) 8. On careful reading of the above decisi…

Shriram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/CHNY/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.173/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shriram Finance Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As Shriram Transport Income Tax, Finance Company Limited), Corporate Circle 3(1), Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Chennai. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 14ASection 2

…., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598: AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24] . 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); 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 phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts"." (emphasis supplied) 9. On careful reading of the above decisi…

M/S Longview Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 130/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

…, (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598 : AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24] . 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); 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 phrases used are “it is declared” or “for the removal of doubts”. (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has be…

Silver Wings Life Spaces, Kota vs. DCIT Circle-1 Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra(Addl. CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…SCC 585, 598]. 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, 30 Silver Wings Life Spaces vs DCIT, Kota (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); 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 phrases used are “it is declared” or “for the removal of doubts”. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of Sectio…

Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 636/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka (CIT)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…., (1981) 2 SCC 585]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into 9 Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24; Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352; CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482]. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are “it is declared” or “for the removal of doubts”. PCIT Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (2022) 448 ITR 674 (Del) (HC) PCIT Vs. O…

DCIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Jindal Itf Limited, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed

ITA 1776/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 1776/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dcit Vs. M/S. Jindal Itf Limited Central Circle – 28 28, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110 015 Pan: Aabcj 9263 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

…, (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598 : AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24] . 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); 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 phrases used are "it is declared"or "for the removal of doubts"." (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has be…

Zodiac Ventures Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 4754/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanzodiac Ventures Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 404, Dev Plaza, 68, S.V. Road, 11(3)(4) Andheri West, Mumbai – Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi 400058. Karve Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aafps7328J 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 250

…[See Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598]. 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); 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 phrases used are “it is declared” or “for the removal of doubts”. 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of Sect…

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 14(3)1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1195/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth SR.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MISS PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 1195/Mum/2015 (Assessment year : 2010-11) TATA INTERNATIONAL vs DCIT RG 14(3)(1) 4TH LIMITED, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 7th Floor, Trent House, C-60, FLOOR, Block-G, Bandra Kurla R.NO.474 M.K.MARG, Complex, Bandra (East) MUMBAI-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 PAN :AAACT3198F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad Patade, Ms Hetal Sangani Respondent by : Ms. Dhivya Ruth SR.DR Date of hearing : 16/05/2024 Date of pronouncement : 28/05/2024 O R D E R PER ANIKE…

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Vishnu Distributors Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

ITA 50/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Section 131Section 14ASection 68

…, (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598 : AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24] . 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); 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 phrases used are “it is declared” or “for the removal of doubts”.” (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has…

M/S. Vedanga Vinimoy Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1165/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 14A

…, (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598 : AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24] . 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); 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 phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts"." (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has…

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3375/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…P., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598: AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24]. 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44), 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 phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts" (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has bee…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3374/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…P., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598: AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24]. 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44), 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 phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts" (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has bee…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3371/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…P., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598: AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24]. 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44), 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 phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts" (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has bee…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…P., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598: AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24]. 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44), 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 phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts" (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has bee…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…P., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598: AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24]. 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44), 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 phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts" (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has bee…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…P., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598: AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24]. 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44), 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 phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts" (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has bee…

M/S. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 774/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 14ASection 234ASection 250

…., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598 : AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24]. 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); 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 phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts".' (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has b…

Aarti Sponge and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, -1(1), Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 70/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Aarti Sponge & Power Ltd. Acit -1 (1) Aarti House, Ashoka Ratna Shankar Raipur Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492 001

For Respondent: Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…tion [See Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 585]. 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 [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24; Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352; CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482]. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are “it is declared” or “for the removal of doubts”. 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of Section 9(1)(ii). It inc…

ACIT- CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Successor to M/S. Magna Distribution & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 2513/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) ACIT, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/s. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19th Floor, (As a M/s.…