Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P

2 SCC 585Reported decision1981#495 most cited

What is Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P authority for?

An Explanation to a statutory provision can either clarify an existing ambiguity in the main provision or add to and widen its scope.

190

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P. · statutory explanation · clarificatory amendment · widening scope of provision · retrospective operation of explanation · Section 9(1)(ii) interpretation · Section 14A disallowance · Section 143(3) assessment · legislative intent · statutory interpretation

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 8DSection 115JBSection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(ii)section 80absection 73clarificatory amendmentresulting companytransferor companyretrospective amendmentsection 9(1)section 115jaddtstrategic investmentdisallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P

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

ITA 2510/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

…s Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [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 ch…

ACIT Central Cir -4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Sucessor to Magna Distribution & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 2507/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

…s Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [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 ch…

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

ITA 2505/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

…s Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [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 ch…

Chalet Hotels Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 1401/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

…s Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [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 ch…

Chalet Hotels Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 1400/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

…s Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [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 ch…

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…s Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [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 p…

Puspak Steel Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 852/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…0) 1 SCC 139 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 67].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Sonia Bhatia v. State of UP., (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., (1…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139] .) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [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 c…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4972/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139] .) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [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 c…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4971/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139] .) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [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 c…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4970/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139] .) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [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 c…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4969/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139] .) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [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 c…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4968/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139] .) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [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 c…

M/S Wevin Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 367/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 201Section 250Section 254

…0) 1 SCC 139 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 67].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Sonia Bhatia v. State of UP., (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., (1…

Elara Capital (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Milind DattaniFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule (Addl. CIT)
Section 14A

…nation can add to and widen main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Sonia Bhatia v See Sonia Bhatia v. State the scope of the main section of U.P P., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598]. If it is in its nature If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the Era Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. 18 ITA No. main provision with effect from the time that the main main provision with effect fr…

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

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

ITA 3674/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 194Section 250Section 40

…0) 1 SCC 139 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 67].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Sonia Bhatia v. State of UP., (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., (1…

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax-Circle 3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 194Section 250Section 40

…0) 1 SCC 139 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 67].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Sonia Bhatia v. State of UP., (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., (1…

M/S. Bhatia Global Trading Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibhatia Global Trading Ltd. Dcit 1(1) Through Official Liquidator Indore Old Cia Building, 1St Floor Vs. Opp. G.P.O. Residency Area, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacb6751 C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14A

…1 SCC 139 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 67] .) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.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., (1…

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 769/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

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

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

…1 SCC 139 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 67] .) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.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., (1…

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)

…1 SCC 139 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 67] .) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.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., (1…