Union of India v. S. Muthyam Reddy

240 ITR 341Supreme Court of India1999#7778 most cited

What is Union of India v. S. Muthyam Reddy authority for?

Amendments to tax laws that are explanatory, declaratory, curative, or clarificatory in nature are judicially construed as retrospective. The Supreme Court has held that words indicating a deeming provision, such as 'shall be deemed never to have included', signify a declaratory amendment with retrospective effect.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. S. Muthyam Reddy · declaratory amendment · retrospective effect · tax law amendments · Finance Act 1989 · section 2(1A) · deeming provision · assessment procedure · income tax act

Sections most often in play

Section 40A(7)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

section 139section 143section 14section 143(3)total incomebusiness

Judgments citing Union of India v. S. Muthyam Reddy

M/S Pramod Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 243/LKW/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 622. He also quoted from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1 and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy (1999) 240 ITR 341 (SC), M/s L.R. Brothers, Indo Flora Limited vs. Commissioner, Central Excise in Civil Appeal No. 7157 of 2008 and the order of the ITAT ‘F’ Bench Delhi in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1312/Del/2020, all of which had held that the said amendments were retrospective in nature. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and…

M/S Pramod Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 242/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 622. He also quoted from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1 and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy (1999) 240 ITR 341 (SC), M/s L.R. Brothers, Indo Flora Limited vs. Commissioner, Central Excise in Civil Appeal No. 7157 of 2008 and the order of the ITAT ‘F’ Bench Delhi in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1312/Del/2020, all of which had held that the said amendments were retrospective in nature. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and…

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)

…curative or clarificatory nature, should be judicially construed as retrospective.( Allied Motors v CIT 224 ITR 677 (SC) (proviso inserted to remedy unintended consequences must be treated as retrospective); CIT v Podar Cement 226 ITR 625 (SC); UOI v Muthyam 240 ITR 341 (SC). The Hon`ble Supreme Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] held that a cardinal principle of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. (See also Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [(1980)…

Ritesh Tandon, Jabalpur vs. Asstt . Director of Income Tax, CPC, Ward2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 9/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…e said Explanations w.e.f. a later date is consistent with the language giving it a retrospective effect and, thus, does not impinge adversely on it being regarded as so. Reference here may be made to the decision in Union of India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy [1999] 240 ITR 341 (SC), wherein the words ‘shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included’ in the Explanation to s. 2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989 were read by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be a declaratory amendment having a retrospective effect, and even as the said amendment was effected during the pendency of the appeal against the assessment. Furthe…

Ritesh Tandon, Jabalpur vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax WD2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 11/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…e said Explanations w.e.f. a later date is consistent with the language giving it a retrospective effect and, thus, does not impinge adversely on it being regarded as so. Reference here may be made to the decision in Union of India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy [1999] 240 ITR 341 (SC), wherein the words ‘shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included’ in the Explanation to s. 2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989 were read by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be a declaratory amendment having a retrospective effect, and even as the said amendment was effected during the pendency of the appeal against the assessment. Furthe…

Pragya Savita, Jabalpur vs. A O Circle2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 14/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…r date is consistent with the language giving it a retrospective effect and, thus, does not impinge adversely on it being regarded as so. Reference here may be made to the decision in Union of India vs. S. Muthyam 3 | P a g e Pragya Savita v. AO Reddy [1999] 240 ITR 341 (SC), wherein the words ‘shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included’ in the Explanation to s. 2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989 were read by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be a declaratory amendment having a retrospective effect, and even as the said amendment was effected during the pendency of the appeal against the assessment. Furthe…

Mukesh Kalway, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 43/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ge giving it a retrospective effect and, thus, does not impinge adversely on it being regarded as 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 32 & 43/JAB/2021 Mukesh Kalway v. Asstt. DIT so. Reference here may be made to the decision in Union of India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy [1999] 240 ITR 341 (SC), wherein the words ‘shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included’ in the Explanation to s. 2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989 was read by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be a declaratory amendment having retrospective effect, and even as the said amendment was effected during the pendency of the appeal against the assessment. Further s…

Mukesh Kalway, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ge giving it a retrospective effect and, thus, does not impinge adversely on it being regarded as 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 32 & 43/JAB/2021 Mukesh Kalway v. Asstt. DIT so. Reference here may be made to the decision in Union of India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy [1999] 240 ITR 341 (SC), wherein the words ‘shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included’ in the Explanation to s. 2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989 was read by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be a declaratory amendment having retrospective effect, and even as the said amendment was effected during the pendency of the appeal against the assessment. Further s…

Jabalpur Motors Ltd, Jabalpur vs. Asstt Director of Income Tax CPC Bangalore., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 22/JAB/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…stent with the language giving it a retrospective effect and, thus, does not impinge adversely on it being regarded as so. Reference here may be made to the decision in Union of 3 | P a g e Jabalpur Motors Ltd. v. Asstt. DIT India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy [1999] 240 ITR 341 (SC), wherein the words ‘shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included’ in the Explanation to s. 2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989 were read by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be a declaratory amendment having a retrospective effect, and even as the said amendment was effected during the pendency of the appeal against the assessment. Furthe…

Mukesh Kumer Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. DCIT-Circle1(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 54/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Nema, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…effect and, thus, does not impinge adversely on it being regarded as so. Reference here may be made to the decision 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 53 & 54/JAB/2022 (AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20) Mukesh Kumar Agrawal v. Dy. CIT in Union of India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy [1999] 240 ITR 341 (SC), wherein the words ‘shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included’ in the Explanation to s. 2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989 were read by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be declaratory amendment having a retrospective effect, and even as the said amendment was effected during the pendency of the appeal against the assessment. Further…

Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. DCIT- Circle 1(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 53/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Nema, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…effect and, thus, does not impinge adversely on it being regarded as so. Reference here may be made to the decision 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 53 & 54/JAB/2022 (AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20) Mukesh Kumar Agrawal v. Dy. CIT in Union of India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy [1999] 240 ITR 341 (SC), wherein the words ‘shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included’ in the Explanation to s. 2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989 were read by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be declaratory amendment having a retrospective effect, and even as the said amendment was effected during the pendency of the appeal against the assessment. Further…

M/S R S Cargo, Satna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Processing Centre, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 12/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…e said Explanations w.e.f. a later date is consistent with the language giving it a retrospective effect and, thus, does not impinge adversely on it being regarded as so. Reference here may be made to the decision in Union of India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy [1999] 240 ITR 341 (SC), wherein the words ‘shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included’ in the Explanation to s. 2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989 was read by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be declaratory amendment having a retrospective effect, and even as the said amendment was effected during the pendency of the appeal against the assessment. Further s…

M/S Srbh Ebguneering & Equipment Pvt Ltd Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Maihar Distt Satna(M.P), Satna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT Cir Katni, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 10/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…e said Explanations w.e.f. a later date is consistent with the language giving it a retrospective effect and, thus, does not impinge adversely on it being regarded as so. Reference here may be made to the decision in Union of India vs. S. Muthyam Reddy [1999] 240 ITR 341 (SC), wherein the words ‘shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included’ in the Explanation to s. 2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989 was read by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be declaratory amendment having a retrospective effect, and even as the said amendment was effected during the 3 | P a g e SRBH Engineering & Equipment P. Ltd. v. Dy.…

Ultra Clean and Care Services Pvt. Ltd, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 44/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur25 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 44/JAB/2021 (Asst. Year: 2018-19) Ultra Clean and Care Services vs. Assistant Director of Income Pvt. Ltd., Jabalpur Tax, CPC, Bangalore. [PAN : AABCU 0336 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 29/08/2022 Date of pronouncement : 13/09/2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…

Union of India v. S. Muthyam Reddy (240 ITR 341) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax