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 367,154 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

M/S. Calcutta Springs Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC- 1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 767/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…, (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…

M/S. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd., Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Durgapur

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

ITA 534/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

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 b…

Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1013/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…] . If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the 19 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 Graphite India Limited 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…

Lintas India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2018/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

…., (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) 25 Lintas India Private Limited 7. The…

Shah and Sanghavi Developers LLP, Vesu, Surat vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 241/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran K. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 23(3)Section 23(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX ASSESSEEE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.241/SRT/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Shah and Sanghavi Developers Assistant Commissioner of LLP, 801, SNS Business Park, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Vs. Opp. Reliance School, Udhna Surat-395001 Magdalla Road,Vesu, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABZFS 2921 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Kiran K. Shah, CA राज" की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Heari…

Til Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 558/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 14A

…tion [See Sonia Bhatia v. State of UP., (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 Shy am Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24; Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC352; 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(l)(ii). It inc…

Ultratech Cement Limited vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors

WA/200056/2021HC Karnataka22 Dec 2022

Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR,K S HEMALEKHA

Section 4

…Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. v. S.N. Raj Kumar - (2018) 6 SCC 410; ii) Kolkata Fish Suppliers' Welfare Association Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors - MANU/WB/2269/2019(Calcutta); jj) Afcons Infrastructure v. Cherian Varkey Construction - (2010) 8 SCC 24; kk) Supreme Paper Mills Ltd v. CCT - (2010) 11 SCC 593; - 67 - ll) Raj Kumar Gandhi v Chandigarh Administration- (2018) 7 SCC 763. 9. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-land losers and learned counsel for the KIADB and learned AGA for the State would support the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as…

ITO TDS Ward, Tirupur vs. Shanthi Fortune (India) Pvt. Ltd., Tirupur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2557/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2385/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore. Palladam 641 664. [Pan: Aajcs4289D] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 88/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Tds Ward, No. 121, Private Limited, Sixty Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Palladam 641 664. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N Arjun Raj, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore, Dated 25.06.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153(3)Section 254

…], Huendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [MANU/SC/0526/1994: (1994) 4 SCC 602: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087], Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar [MANU/SC/0643/1999: (1999) 8 SCC 16] and Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [MANU/SC/0405/2001: (2001) 8 SCC 24], has elaborately discussed the scope and ambit of an amending legislation and its retrospectivity and held that every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law. This Court has held that the law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature whereas law relating to right of appeal even though…

Shanthi Fortune (India) Private Limited, Tirupur vs. ACIT TDS Circle, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2385/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2385/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore. Palladam 641 664. [Pan: Aajcs4289D] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 88/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Tds Ward, No. 121, Private Limited, Sixty Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Palladam 641 664. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N Arjun Raj, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore, Dated 25.06.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153(3)Section 254

…], Huendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [MANU/SC/0526/1994: (1994) 4 SCC 602: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087], Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar [MANU/SC/0643/1999: (1999) 8 SCC 16] and Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [MANU/SC/0405/2001: (2001) 8 SCC 24], has elaborately discussed the scope and ambit of an amending legislation and its retrospectivity and held that every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law. This Court has held that the law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature whereas law relating to right of appeal even though…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Clp India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 290/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
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, I.T.A No. 290/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 13 DCIT vs. M/s. CLP India Pvt. Ltd. 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…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2285/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…., (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…

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

…., (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…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 770 & 771/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Muthyala Suryababu, The Income Tax No. 2, 2nd Cross, Officer, Cambridge Road, Ward – 1(2)(1), Halasuru, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. Vs. PAN: AGAPS5455P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Guruswamy H, ITP : Shri Subash K.R. Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 06-10-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 06-10-2022 ORDER PER BENCH Present appeals by the assessee has been filed by assessee again…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 770 & 771/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Muthyala Suryababu, The Income Tax No. 2, 2nd Cross, Officer, Cambridge Road, Ward – 1(2)(1), Halasuru, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. Vs. PAN: AGAPS5455P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Guruswamy H, ITP : Shri Subash K.R. Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 06-10-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 06-10-2022 ORDER PER BENCH Present appeals by the assessee has been filed by assessee again…

Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 350/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 284/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Cit(A), Nfac (Delhi) Vs 40, Strand Road Model House Ground Floor Room No. 102 Kolkata - 700001 Pan : Aaacw5921F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT
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) I.T.A. No. 284/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 I.T.A. No. 350/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 6 5 SCC 482, 506] . But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the p…

Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 284/KOL/2021[2015-116]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2015-116

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 284/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Cit(A), Nfac (Delhi) Vs 40, Strand Road Model House Ground Floor Room No. 102 Kolkata - 700001 Pan : Aaacw5921F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT
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) I.T.A. No. 284/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 I.T.A. No. 350/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 6 5 SCC 482, 506] . But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the p…

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

…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 ITA Nos.793 & 1187/Bang/2018 Page 19 of 23 [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…

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

…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 I.T.A. No. 175/Asr/2022 7 &3 Other Group of cases presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts". 18. There wa…

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

…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 I.T.A. No. 175/Asr/2022 7 &3 Other Group of cases presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts". 18. There wa…

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

…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 I.T.A. No. 175/Asr/2022 7 &3 Other Group of cases presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts". 18. There wa…