← 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

Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra, Padampua vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Kailash Heights

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 424/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A)&For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 24Section 253(3)

amendments made to a statute: prospective amendments with effect from a fixed date; retrospective amendments with effect from a fixed anterior date; and clarificatory amendments which are prospective in nature. Keeping in view, the aforesaid principles enunciated by the Apex Court, in Vatika Township [P.] Ltd.,'s case (supra

Surjit Memorial Educational Society, Ferozepur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward ( Exemptions), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 189/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

machinery provision. If at all, the re-casted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of (a) 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

Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-TDS, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 67/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

Section 154Section 200ASection 23Section 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

Annapurna Charitable Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Annapurna Charitable Society, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Exemption Ward, Pan: Aaata 3097 P Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 4

does not specify whether it should be U/s. 139(1) or U/s. 139(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that these clarificatory amendments are binding on the Revenue and hence the denial of exemption U/s. 11 of the Act is not valid. Per contra ... allowed for filing of return of income subsequent to insertion of Clause-(ba) in Sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act. These clarificatory amendments apply in relation to AY 2018-19 and subsequent assessment years. Since it has been clarified by the CBDT that if the return

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Jao Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

ITA 64/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Batps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Jao-Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 ... intended An amending Act may be purely declaratory 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 (ibid., pp. 468-69). Where a statute is passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission

Elara Capital (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Milind DattaniFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule (Addl. CIT)
Section 14A

fixed date; ii) ) retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed anterior date; and anterior date; and iii) clarificatory amendments which are retrospective in clarificatory amendments which are retrospective in clarificatory amendments which are retrospective in nature." nature 48. The above judgement ... fixed anterior retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed anterior retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed anterior (iii) date; date; and and clarificatory clarificatory amendments amendments which which are are retrospective in nature. retrospective in nature 50. On On the the ab above ove touchstones, touchstones, we we note

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

assessee is not a contractor but a developer. In coming to the above finding, in para 6.15, the CIT{A} also considered the clarificatory amendment by way of Explanation below sub section (13) of section 80lA by the Finance Acts 2007 and 2009 and held, after considering various judicial pronouncements

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2485/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

assessee is not a contractor but a developer. In coming to the above finding, in para 6.15, the CIT{A} also considered the clarificatory amendment by way of Explanation below sub section (13) of section 80lA by the Finance Acts 2007 and 2009 and held, after considering various judicial pronouncements

Qualcomm Incorporated, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7559/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7894/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

Idbi Capital Markets & Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed, appeal for AY

ITA 871/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.866, 868, 869, 870 & 871/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) Idbi Capital Markets Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 4(1) (1) & Securities Limited बिधम/ Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 6Th Floor, Idbi Tower, Wtc Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 005 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaaci1268F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. One of the pleas raised by the ld. DR before us, that now there is an clarificatory amendment by the Finance Act, 2022 by insertion of an Explanation in section 14, wherein, the provision of section 14A has been made applicable even when

Idbi Capital Markets & Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed, appeal for AY

ITA 870/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.866, 868, 869, 870 & 871/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) Idbi Capital Markets Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 4(1) (1) & Securities Limited बिधम/ Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 6Th Floor, Idbi Tower, Wtc Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 005 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaaci1268F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. One of the pleas raised by the ld. DR before us, that now there is an clarificatory amendment by the Finance Act, 2022 by insertion of an Explanation in section 14, wherein, the provision of section 14A has been made applicable even when

Idbi Capital Markets & Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed, appeal for AY

ITA 869/MUM/2023[2016-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.866, 868, 869, 870 & 871/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) Idbi Capital Markets Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 4(1) (1) & Securities Limited बिधम/ Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 6Th Floor, Idbi Tower, Wtc Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 005 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaaci1268F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. One of the pleas raised by the ld. DR before us, that now there is an clarificatory amendment by the Finance Act, 2022 by insertion of an Explanation in section 14, wherein, the provision of section 14A has been made applicable even when

Idbi Capital Markets & Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed, appeal for AY

ITA 868/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.866, 868, 869, 870 & 871/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) Idbi Capital Markets Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 4(1) (1) & Securities Limited बिधम/ Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 6Th Floor, Idbi Tower, Wtc Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 005 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaaci1268F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. One of the pleas raised by the ld. DR before us, that now there is an clarificatory amendment by the Finance Act, 2022 by insertion of an Explanation in section 14, wherein, the provision of section 14A has been made applicable even when

Idbi Capital Markets & Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed, appeal for AY

ITA 866/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.866, 868, 869, 870 & 871/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) Idbi Capital Markets Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 4(1) (1) & Securities Limited बिधम/ Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 6Th Floor, Idbi Tower, Wtc Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 005 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaaci1268F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. One of the pleas raised by the ld. DR before us, that now there is an clarificatory amendment by the Finance Act, 2022 by insertion of an Explanation in section 14, wherein, the provision of section 14A has been made applicable even when

Vinod Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. AO Ward 71(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 233/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)

provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. Based on the judicial pronouncements as extracted out, it can be safely concluded that the clarificatory amendment brought out by the Finance Assessee, 2021 will be applicable to the issue in the instant appeal for the earlier year also

Braham Parkash Yadav, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 439/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under:- “(t) in view of the discussion above, it can be safely concluded that the clarificatory amendment brought out by the Finance Act, 2021 will be applicable to the issue in the instant appeal also. It is also clear that

Sodhani Sweet Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 383/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Khandelwal (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

confirmed the disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “viii) From the wordings above, it is also clear that the above clarificatory amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 applied to the issue in the instant appeal also. The amendment declares that provisions of Section 43B does

Bhanu Parkash Bansal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward2(3), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 133/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (E written submission)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 5

appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- 5.7 (t) In view of the discussion above, it can be safely concluded that the clarificatory amendment brought out by the Finance Act,2021 will be applicable to the issue in the instant appeal also. It is also clear that the scope

DCIT (It)-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2866/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2866/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit(It)-4(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Reliance Jio Room No. 1712, 17Th Floor, Infocomm Ltd Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 3Rd Floor, Maker Point, Mumbai-400021. Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci6363G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nimesh Vora/Ms. Moksha Moksha Mehta Revenue By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2022 For The Ay 2019-20. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Are As Under: - A. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Tax Was Not Required To Be Deducted At Source On The Payment Made By The Assessee To Reliance Jio Infocomm Uk (Rjiuk) For Availing Bandwidth Services As It Did Not Amount To Income Of The Payee By Way Of Royalty U/S 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act, 1961 Read With Article 13 Of The India-Uk Dtaa. B. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld, Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Tax Was Not Required To Be Deducted At Source On The Payment Made By The Assessee To Reliance Jio Infocomm Uk (Rjiuk) For Availing Bandwidth Services As It Did Not Amount To Income Of The Payee

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: None
Section 195Section 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not considering Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(I)(vi) of the Act as being declaratory and clarificatory amendments explaining the law as existing from 01.06.1976 onwards as they satisfy the conditions laid down by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (367 ITR 466) wherein it was held that clarificatory amendment will be retrospective in nature. 7. The Ld. DR further explained the interpretation to be assigned to the expression “process” for the purpose of Article