“clarificatory amendment”

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

amendment having been brought into force in the year 2018 the present matter relating to the year 2007-2008, the said curative or clarificatory amendment would not come to the rescue of the Assessee and as such, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is required ... year 2018 though claimed curative by Sri. Aravind, we are of the considered opinion that the same is more an explanatory amendment or a clarificatory amendment which clarifies the methodology of applying Section 80JJ-AA of the Act. If the submission of Sri. K.V.Aravind is accepted, then no employer/assessee would

Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in favour of the assessee on the ground that the said judgment was rendered before the aforesaid clarificatory amendments made under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case. 5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with

Zynga Game Network India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Zynga Game Network Vs Dcit, Circle -7(1)(1) India Pvt. Ltd. Bmtc Building, 80 Feet Road No. 19, Prestige Falcon Tower Koramangala 4Th & 5Th Floor, Brunton Bengaluru 560095 Road, Richmond Town Bengaluru 560025 Pan – Aaacz3937G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10054666 Dated 16.06.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc / Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A)"] Has Erred In Disallowing The Delayed Remittance Of The Employees Contribution To Pf Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Remitted The Same Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases discussed at paras 5.61 and 5.6.3 above explaining the nature and scope of declaratory/ explanatory/ clarificatory amendments, I am of the considered view that the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act 3 M/s. Zynga Game

Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Rajanikanth Reddy Vs The Income Tax Officer- 4(2)(2) No.21, 14Th Main, Venkateshwara Bengaluru Layout, Madiwala Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Ablpr5981K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Bengaluru-4/10069/2020-21 Dated 25.05.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Income Of Appellant In The Order U/S. 154 Of The Act, At Rs. 1,92,26,970/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 1,09,63,817/-, Under The Normal Provisions, On Account Of The Disallowance Of Rs. 82,63,148/- Made U/S.36[1][Va] Of The Act, Based Upon The Details In The Tax Audit

Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in favour of the assessee on the ground that the said judgment was rendered before the aforesaid clarificatory amendments made under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with ... unambiguous. An amending Act may be purely clarificatory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect and, therefore, if the principal Act was existing law when the constitution came into force, the amending

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

year 2018 though claimed curative by Sri. Aravind, we are of the considered opinion that the same is more an explanatory amendment or a clarificatory amendment which clarifies the methodology of applying Section 80JJ-AA of the Act. If the submission of Sri. K. V. Aravind is accepted, then ... legislative's object, there would be a presumption that such a legislation would operate with retrospective effect by giving a purposive construction. Thus the clarificatory amendment of the year 2018 can also be said to apply retrospectively for the benefit of the Assessee even though the Revenue contends that there

Sri. K. Satish Kumar, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

Circular No.5 of 2005 dated 15.7.2005 issued by the CBDT, the insertion of the aforesaid section has been explained thus: “Clarificatory amendments regarding estimates by Valuation Officer in certain cases The existing provisions of section 131 provide that the Assessing Officer shall have the same powers as are vested

Thomas Abraham, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Circle-1(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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