← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Conc Shade Constructions Pvt Ltd, Chikkamangalur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

intent and declares the position as was originally intended, it takes retroactive effect from the date the original provision was made effective. Normally such clarificatory amendment is made retrospectively effective from the earlier date. It may so happen that sometimes the clarificatory or explanatory provision introduced later to depict

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Conc Shade Construction Pvt Ltd, Chikkamangalur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

intent and declares the position as was originally intended, it takes retroactive effect from the date the original provision was made effective. Normally such clarificatory amendment is made retrospectively effective from the earlier date. It may so happen that sometimes the clarificatory or explanatory provision introduced later to depict

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Conc Shade Construction Pvt Ltd, Chikkamangalur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 299/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

intent and declares the position as was originally intended, it takes retroactive effect from the date the original provision was made effective. Normally such clarificatory amendment is made retrospectively effective from the earlier date. It may so happen that sometimes the clarificatory or explanatory provision introduced later to depict

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

intent and declares the position as was originally intended, it takes retroactive effect from the date the original provision was made effective. Normally such clarificatory amendment is made retrospectively effective from the earlier date. It may so happen that sometimes the clarificatory or explanatory provision introduced later to depict

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

intent and declares the position as was originally intended, it takes retroactive effect from the date the original provision was made effective. Normally such clarificatory amendment is made retrospectively effective from the earlier date. It may so happen that sometimes the clarificatory or explanatory provision introduced later to depict

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

intent and declares the position as was originally intended, it takes retroactive effect from the date the original provision was made effective. Normally such clarificatory amendment is made retrospectively effective from the earlier date. It may so happen that sometimes the clarificatory or explanatory provision introduced later to depict

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

intent and declares the position as was originally intended, it takes retroactive effect from the date the original provision was made effective. Normally such clarificatory amendment is made retrospectively effective from the earlier date. It may so happen that sometimes the clarificatory or explanatory provision introduced later to depict

ACIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ld., Mumbai

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

ITA 1177/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit (It)-4(3)(1), M/S Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1613, 16Th Floor, Air Vs. Zion Bizworld, Subhash Road-A, Near India Building, Nariman Point, Garware Office, Ville Parle (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400057 Pan No. Aaacm 9164 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra , DR
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

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

M/S. Zion Hospitals and Research Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 448/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Zion Hospitals & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 9, “Le Villa”, Commissioner Of Kirti Layout, Income Tax, Kammanahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 084. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacz4369G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders 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 Loss Of Appellant In The Intimation U/S. 143[1] Of The Act, At Rs. 63,89,502/-As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 43B

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

Income Tax Officer -4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6177/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Laliet Kumar (Jm)

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(l)(vi) of the 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 the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does not provide

M/S Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 907/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Assistant Itpl Road, Commissioner Of Hoody, Income Tax, Whitefield Road, Ao As Special Range 7, Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 By Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7(1)(1) (`A0'), Bangalore Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-7 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Grounds Relating To Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Of The Act 2.1. The Learned Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Amounting To Rs. 13,14,23,244/-

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28Section 37Section 80J

adding a second proviso to the definition of additional employee in Explanation (ii) to Sec.80JJAA of the Act. Even prior to such curative or clarificatory amendment, we are of the view that the claim for deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act cannot be and ought not to have been disallowed

M/S. Jeans Knit Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80J

that the amendment having been brought into force in the year 2018 the present matter relating to d 7-2008, 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 ... curative by Sri. Aravind, we are of the considered opinion that the same is Page 20 of 27 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

Pragati Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycti (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepragati Fashions P Ltd., Vs. Dycti (Cpc) F.P.No. 455, Shree 1 St Floor, Prestige Sadguru Heights, Alpha, Bhavani Shankar Road, Beratenagrahara, Dadar (W) Hosur Road, Uttahalli Mumbai-400028. Hobli,Bangalore- 560100 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp1730H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.Counsel Respondent By : Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

decion of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. Industrial Security and Intelligence India Ltd.(supra) considered the clarificatory amendment in the Finance Act 2021 and decided the issue in favour of Revenue. 7.19 Thus, the aforesaid Explanations inserted by Finance Act, 2021 have ... amendment with effect from a fixed date; (ii) retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed anterior date; and Pragati Fashions P Ltd, Mumbai. (iii) clarificatory amendments which are retrospective in nature. Thus, it was a conscious decision of the legislature, even when the legislature knew the implication thereof and took

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2223/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

intent and declares the position as was originally intended, it takes retroactive effect from the date the original provision was made effective. Normally such clarificatory amendment is made retrospectively effective from the earlier date. It may so happen that sometimes the clarificatory or explanatory provision introduced later to depict

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2222/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

intent and declares the position as was originally intended, it takes retroactive effect from the date the original provision was made effective. Normally such clarificatory amendment is made retrospectively effective from the earlier date. It may so happen that sometimes the clarificatory or explanatory provision introduced later to depict

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

adding a second proviso to the definition of additional employee in Explanation (ii) to Sec.80JJAA of the Act. Even prior to such curative or clarificatory amendment, we are of the view that the claim for deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act ought not have been disallowed. The Ld.AO is therefore directed

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

adding a second proviso to the definition of additional employee in Explanation (ii) to Sec.80JJAA of the Act. Even prior to such curative or clarificatory amendment, we are of the view that the claim for deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act ought not have been disallowed. The Ld.AO is therefore directed

M/S. Methods (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 558/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gopinath C.H., CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 438Section 43B

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. For the above and other grounds that may be urged

ACIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 523/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(l)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law as it was always meant

M/S.Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 364/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Synamedia Ltd. [Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited’], The Assistant C/O. M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, International Survey No. 51-64/4, Taxation, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Vs. Circle – 1(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aabcn2524L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Dilip, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021

For Appellant: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income,43 [“India-Finland DTAA”]. After setting out the rationale for the clarificatory amendment made vide the Finance Act 2012, the High Court held : “DTAA and in the Income Tax Act since the right to use simpliciter