← All Phrases

“clarificatory amendment”

MiscellaneousGeneralGeneral328 judgments

The decision most relied on for clarificatory amendment is Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT (224 ITR 677), cited in 398 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on clarificatory amendment

Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT
224 ITR 677 · 1997 · Supreme Court
398
citing judgments

Amendments to the Income-tax Act that are curative, clarificatory, or beneficial in nature apply retrospectively from the date the original statutory provision was introduced, even if not explicitly stated.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT
436 ITR 582 · 2021 · Supreme Court
308
citing judgments

Amendments to tax law that impose new obligations or change existing legal positions apply prospectively, even if stated to be "for the removal of doubts." The judgment also clarifies that deductions under Section 43B are allowed only on actual payment, overriding the mercantile system of accounting.

CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd.
49 Taxmann.com 249 · 2014 · Supreme Court
294
citing judgments

Legislation is ordinarily presumed not to have retrospective operation, especially for taxing statutes unless explicitly stated or when intended to remove hardship for the assessee. The decision clarifies the principles for determining whether an amendment to a taxing statute applies prospectively or retrospectively, distinguishing between clarificatory and substantive amendments.

Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT
12 SCC 717 · 2005 · Supreme Court
285
citing judgments

A cardinal principle of tax law is that the law in force for the relevant assessment year applies unless expressly or necessarily provided otherwise. A retrospective tax provision stated to be 'for the removal of doubts' is not presumed retrospective if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood.

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar
8 SCC 24 · 2001 · Supreme Court
263
citing judgments

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.

Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.
226 ITR 625 · 1997 · Supreme Court
244
citing judgments

Amendments to tax laws that are explanatory, declaratory, curative, or clarificatory in nature are judicially construed as retrospective, especially if they are intended to remedy unintended consequences.

CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd.
304 ITR 308 · 2008 · Supreme Court
229
citing judgments

A clarificatory or declaratory amendment to a statutory provision has retrospective effect from the date the original provision came into force, as its purpose is to clarify existing law rather than introduce new law.

Judgments citing clarificatory amendment

Ranar Agrochem Limited, Parawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

ITA 288/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri M. Madhusudan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Jenardhanan V, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied........ From the wordings above, it is also clear that the above clarificatory amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 applies to the issue in the instant appeal also. While in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate vs. Mumbai International Airport Limited, Mumbai

ITA 7035/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

relying only on past ITAT orders, without appreciating that substantial investments existed which were capable of generating exempt income, and without considering the retrospective clarificatory amendment to section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Mumbai International Airport Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

relying only on past ITAT orders, without appreciating that substantial investments existed which were capable of generating exempt income, and without considering the retrospective clarificatory amendment to section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Raj Kumar Palia, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Itarsi, Camp at Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 453/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2009-10 Raj Kumar Paliya Dcit/Acit M/S. Da Construction

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40

upheld the disallowance of depreciation but restricted disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) to 30% of Rs. 2,16,333/- taking into account the subsequent clarificatory amendment made by Govt. in section 40(a)(ia). The relevant paras of CIT(A)’s order are re-produced below: Paras relevant ... alternative legal submission and restricted the quantum of disallowance to 30% in contrast to 100% made by AO taking into account the subsequent clarificatory amendment made by Govt. in section 40(a)(ia) as interpreted by ITAT, Delhi in DCIT Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd (2020) 208 TTJ (Del) 137. Thus

ITO (It)- 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7523/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain
Section 195Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 971

Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1548/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

being 1% of average investments of Rs. 32,79,58,949/- to the exempt income Rs. 27,63,18,249/-ignoring the clarificatory amendment brought in by Finance Act. 2022? Tax Effect: Rs. 1,78.72.846/- @34.61% of Rs.5.16.40,700/-) 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

ITA 1452/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

being 1% of average investments of Rs. 32,79,58,949/- to the exempt income Rs. 27,63,18,249/-ignoring the clarificatory amendment brought in by Finance Act. 2022? Tax Effect: Rs. 1,78.72.846/- @34.61% of Rs.5.16.40,700/-) 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2287/PUN/2025[2014-15- Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

yielding to the machinery provision. If at all, the recasted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of clarificatory amendment. Even in absence of such provision, as noted, it was always open for the Revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E

Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Circle-1, Kolhaur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2286/PUN/2025[2014-15 - Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

yielding to the machinery provision. If at all, the recasted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of clarificatory amendment. Even in absence of such provision, as noted, it was always open for the Revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E

Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Circle -1, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2285/PUN/2025[2014-15- Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

yielding to the machinery provision. If at all, the recasted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of clarificatory amendment. Even in absence of such provision, as noted, it was always open for the Revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5256/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5255/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5254/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5253/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO (It) 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5252/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5251/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5250/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5249/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5248/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does