clarificatory amendment — 328 case laws

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Sri N. Suresh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

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 which the Constitution came into force, the amending

Kishna Ram, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer Nahan, Nahan

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1108/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Laljee Agarjeet, C.A Ms. Meenu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr Ranjeet Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

verifying the facts, held that the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) was in accordance with law, particularly in view of the retrospective clarificatory amendments brought in by the Finance Act, 2021, and the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The appellate

Kai Ganpatrao Sakharam Pawar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Maryadit, Karad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 356/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

enacting statutes. The Court also held that if a literal interpretation of a statute leads to ambiguity or undermines its intended purpose, any subsequent clarificatory amendment should be construed retrospectively. The Court further held that the mere mention or omission of a term suggesting retroactivity is not, in itself, sufficient ... determine the retrospective application of an amendment. However, it has to be ensured that the clarificatory amendment doesn't introduce ITA No.356/PUN/2025 [A] substantive changes to the existing statute. Instead, it should supplement the original enactment to remove ambiguities arising from literal interpretation.” Findings &Analysis : 4. We have heard both

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 141/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.136 To 141/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gurunath Shambhi Vernekar, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.113, Gagan Enclave, S Tds-1, Pune. Gangadham Road, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Pnego6309C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate & Advocate-M.Ashvini – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 13.12.2024. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Appeals Were Heard

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

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

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 140/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.136 To 141/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gurunath Shambhi Vernekar, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.113, Gagan Enclave, S Tds-1, Pune. Gangadham Road, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Pnego6309C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate & Advocate-M.Ashvini – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 13.12.2024. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Appeals Were Heard

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

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

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 139/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.136 To 141/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gurunath Shambhi Vernekar, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.113, Gagan Enclave, S Tds-1, Pune. Gangadham Road, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Pnego6309C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate & Advocate-M.Ashvini – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 13.12.2024. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Appeals Were Heard

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

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

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.136 To 141/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gurunath Shambhi Vernekar, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.113, Gagan Enclave, S Tds-1, Pune. Gangadham Road, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Pnego6309C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate & Advocate-M.Ashvini – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 13.12.2024. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Appeals Were Heard

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

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

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.136 To 141/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gurunath Shambhi Vernekar, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.113, Gagan Enclave, S Tds-1, Pune. Gangadham Road, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Pnego6309C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate & Advocate-M.Ashvini – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 13.12.2024. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Appeals Were Heard

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

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

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 136/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.136 To 141/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gurunath Shambhi Vernekar, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.113, Gagan Enclave, S Tds-1, Pune. Gangadham Road, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Pnego6309C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate & Advocate-M.Ashvini – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 13.12.2024. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Appeals Were Heard

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

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

Anatole Solutions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1082/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 234ASection 56(2)(viib)

actual substance of the amendment that determines its ultimate operation and not the bare language in which such amendment is couched. A Clarificatory amendment presu mes the existence of a provision the language of which is obscure, ambiguous, may have made an obvious omission, or is capable of more than ... course must be the first to be given effect to), but because the law which was intended to be given retrospective effect as a clarificatory amendment, is in its true nature one that expands the scope of the section it seeks to clarify, and resultantly introduces new principles, upon which

Shriya Devi Mata Mandir Prajapat Samaj Seva Sansthan, Rajsamand vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 349/JODH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

Section 12ASection 2Section 80GSection 80G(5)

available before him. On the one hand, registration with Dev Sthan Vibhag filed on 10/06/2023 confirm investment in purchase of land towards objects and clarificatory amendment w.r.l. construct and run Dharamshala is applicable retrospectively on the other. successfully negates observation relied by Ld. CIT (Exemption) as to amendment vis-ävis ... particular caste/community indeed. It is noted that registration with Dev Sthan Vibhag filed on 10/06/2023 confirm investment in purchase of land towards objects and clarificatory amendment w.r.t. construct and run Dharamshala is applicable retrospectively however, Ld. CIT (Exemption) negated by referring to amendment vis-ävis purchase of land for Dharamshala

Shriya Devi Mata Mandir Prajapat Samaj Seva Sansthan, Rajsamand vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 348/JODH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

Section 12ASection 2Section 80GSection 80G(5)

available before him. On the one hand, registration with Dev Sthan Vibhag filed on 10/06/2023 confirm investment in purchase of land towards objects and clarificatory amendment w.r.l. construct and run Dharamshala is applicable retrospectively on the other. successfully negates An application for registration with Dev Sthan Vibhag dated 10/06/2023 giving ... particular caste/community indeed. It is noted that registration with Dev Sthan Vibhag filed on 10/06/2023 confirm investment in purchase of land towards objects and clarificatory amendment w.r.t. construct and run Dharamshala is applicable retrospectively however, Ld. CIT (Exemption) negated by referring to amendment vis-ävis purchase of land for Dharamshala

Supreme Nonwovens Private Limited, Chembur vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 1384/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesupreme Nonwovens Private Vs Acit-14(3)(2), Mumbai, Roomno.455,4Thfloor,Aayakar Limited, Plot No.110, Supreme House, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 16Th Road, Maharastra, 400 071 Pan : Aaacs5921R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal a/w Miss Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh–

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 250

assessee have been addressed: The absence of actual exempt income in the year is not a shield against disallowance, in view of clarificatory amendments and binding interpretative guidance. Allowing otherwise would defeat the purpose of Section 14A and permit revenue leakage contrary to legislative intent () (). 5 ITA 1384/Mum/2024 Supreme Nonwovens

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 454/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Whether notice was to be issued in SLP filed by revenue against said impugned order - Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of revenue] Clarificatory Amendment in Finance Act, 2022: The Finance Act, 2022 has finally settled the relevant issue by bringing out the amendments, as extracted below, which are purely ... been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such income not forming part of the total income. Based on the above clarificatory amendment and the recent relevant judicial pronouncements as extracted below, it can be safely concluded that the clarificatory amendment as brought out by the Finance

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 453/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH

M/S. Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT-I, Lucknow

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Whether notice was to be issued in SLP filed by revenue against said impugned order - Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of revenue] Clarificatory Amendment in Finance Act, 2022: The Finance Act, 2022 has finally settled the relevant issue by bringing out the amendments, as extracted below, which are purely ... been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such income not forming part of the total income. Based on the above clarificatory amendment and the recent relevant judicial pronouncements as extracted below, it can be safely concluded that the clarificatory amendment as brought out by the Finance

Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

ITA 3714/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR/

Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 80I

contention in view of amendment introduced to section 14A from financial year 2001. The said amendment was treated by the Ld. DRP as clarificatory amendment necessitated due to wrong use and misinterpretations. Accordingly, the Ld. DRP upheld the action of the Ld. AO. 9.1 Before us, the Ld. counsel

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1416/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 80I

case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the facts of the case are not in conformity with clarificatory amendment to Section 801A of IT Act Explanation 2 to Section 801A vide Finance Act 2007) which was introduced to unambiguously explain that only those enterprises

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Hyderbad vs. Sew Infrastucture Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1723/HYD/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the facts of the case are not in conformity with clarificatory amendment to Section 801A of IT Act Explanation 2 to Section 801A vide Finance Act 2007) which was introduced to unambiguously explain that only those enterprises

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1722/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA

“clarificatory amendment”

Leading authorities on clarificatory amendment

Judgments citing clarificatory amendment

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

Kishna Ram, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer Nahan, Nahan

Kai Ganpatrao Sakharam Pawar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Maryadit, Karad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Satara

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

Anatole Solutions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 2, Jaipur

Shriya Devi Mata Mandir Prajapat Samaj Seva Sansthan, Rajsamand vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

Shriya Devi Mata Mandir Prajapat Samaj Seva Sansthan, Rajsamand vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

Supreme Nonwovens Private Limited, Chembur vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

M/S. Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT-I, Lucknow

Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Hyderbad vs. Sew Infrastucture Limited, Hyderabad

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad