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.

How many judgments cite Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P?

190 judgments on BharatTax cite Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P (2 SCC 585), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 8D, Section 115JB, Section 250, Section 36(1)(vii).

Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P (2 SCC 585)

Powertronix Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…

M/S Balaji Export Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 29, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey] Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…

Plasto Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 523/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey] Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…1 A.Y 2018-19 M/s. Plasto Electronics P.Ltd आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Plasto Electronics P.Ltd Vs. DCIT, ( CPC), Bangalore PAN: AADCP1019J Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 02-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement 10-12-2021 For the Appellant Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate, ld.AR For the Respondent Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Add. CIT, Ld. DR ORDER Per Bench This is an appealpreferred by the assessee against the order of the Com…

Tapan Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey] Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…

Manjushree Plantations Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 503/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…