← 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

M/S. Super Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1949/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 1949 & 1950/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-2020 M/S Super Tiles & Marbles National Faceless Appeal Pvt. Ltd, Centre (Nfac) Vs. 904 Marathon Icon, Opposite Mararshi Karve Road, New Peninsula Corporate Park, Off Marine Lines, Churchgate, Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel-West, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacs 9361 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raman Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Raman Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 14Section 43B

under: “7. Under these circumstances and following the clarificatory 7. Under these circumstances and following the clarificatory 7. Under these circumstances and following the clarificatory amendments made by the Finance Ac amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to section t, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section

Aijal Handicrafts Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 312/JPR/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena, Addl.CIT
Section 36(1)(va)

observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases discussed at paras 5.6.1. 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 has righty been disallowed

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

ultimate operation and not the bare language in 24 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur which such amendment is couched. A clarificatory amendment presumes the existence of a provision the language of which is obscure, ambiguous, may havemade an obvious omission, or is capable of more than ... must be the first to be given effect to), but because the law which was intended to be given retrospective effect to 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

Harmony Plastics Pvt.Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaiur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad180/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) M/S. Harmony Plastics Pvt Ltd. V The Acit S F-335-339, Bhamashah Industrial Circle-1 Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur Uddaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch 5399 D

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32(2)(iia)

this r egard, in the mind of the AO, stands removed by virtue of legislature, incorporating in the statute, the necessary clarificatory amendment. A perusal of the extract of the memorandum explaining the amendment relied upon would lead to discrimination, in respect of plant and machinery which was used

Bikaner Engineering Works, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 372/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beign, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

under respective Acts by observing as under:- BIKANEER ENGINEERING WORKS VS ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR (viii) ………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. The amendment declares that provisions of Section

New Vision Softeocom & Consultabcy P Ltd, Bhopal vs. The DCIT/ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 203/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Last Date Of Filing The Income Tax Return U/S 139(1) Of The Act As Required By Section 43B(B) For Allowability Of Deduction On Actual Payment Basis.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya & Ajay Chhajad, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied......". 8.4.16. 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

Prashanti Engineering Works P Ltd, Pithampur vs. The Asst.DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 171/IND/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

made the following observations while dismissing the assessee’s appeal: “6.9 In view of the above discussions and also keeping in view of the clarificatory amendments brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 vide (a) Explanation 2 in section 36(1 )(va) (b) Explanation 5 in section 43B Keeping

Paris Elysees India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 357/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is not acceptable and is dismissed. “5.48 From the discussions above, it is also clear that the clarificatory amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 applies to the issue in the instant appeal also. The amendment clarifies that provisions of section ... clarifications brought about by the amendment clearly apply retrospectively. The case laws relied on by the appellant which were rendered prior to the clarificatory amendments, therefore are not applicable to the present case. Therefore, the sum of Rs 4,62,183/- being the employee's contribution

Sandeep Sethi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 155/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132(1)

actual substance of the amendment that determines its ultimate operation and not the bare language in which such amendment is couched. A clarificatory amendment presumes the existence of a provision the language of which is obscure, ambiguous, may havemade an obvious omission, or is capable of more than one meaning ... must be the first to be given effect to), but because the law which was intended to be given retrospective effect to 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

Rajiv Nigotiya, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 154/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132(1)

actual substance of the amendment that determines its ultimate operation and not the bare language in which such amendment is couched. A clarificatory amendment presumes the existence of a provision the language of which is obscure, ambiguous, may havemade an obvious omission, or is capable of more than one meaning ... must be the first to be given effect to), but because the law which was intended to be given retrospective effect to 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

M/S Nigam Jewels Pvt. Ltd., H-45, Sez 1, Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Baig (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

clarifications brought about by the amendment clearly apply retrospectively. The case laws relied on by the appellant which were rendered prior to the clarificatory amendments, therefore are not applicable to the present case. 5.30 It is therefore, held that the disallowance made

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

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

ITA 659/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with ... effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory amendment. The decisions relied on by the assessee are directly on the point and we are in full agreement with the view taken by the Madras and Karnataka High Courts. The proposition stated in the reported judgment applies in all fours. By following

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

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

ITA 658/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with ... effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory amendment. The decisions relied on by the assessee are directly on the point and we are in full agreement with the view taken by the Madras and Karnataka High Courts. The proposition stated in the reported judgment applies in all fours. By following

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

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

ITA 657/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with ... effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory amendment. The decisions relied on by the assessee are directly on the point and we are in full agreement with the view taken by the Madras and Karnataka High Courts. The proposition stated in the reported judgment applies in all fours. By following

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

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

ITA 656/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with ... effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory amendment. The decisions relied on by the assessee are directly on the point and we are in full agreement with the view taken by the Madras and Karnataka High Courts. The proposition stated in the reported judgment applies in all fours. By following

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

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

ITA 655/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with ... effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory amendment. The decisions relied on by the assessee are directly on the point and we are in full agreement with the view taken by the Madras and Karnataka High Courts. The proposition stated in the reported judgment applies in all fours. By following

Craftsman Automation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 652/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.652/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.N.ArjunrajFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

that the amendment brought by the legislature w.e.f.01.04.2019 by the Finance Act, 2018 though claimed curative, the same is more explanatory amendment or a clarificatory amendment which clarifies the methodology of applying the provisions of Sec.80JJAA of the Act. According to the Ld.Counsel, the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka

Navin Flurine International, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is fully dismissed

ITA 6532/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 41(1)

this regard, in the mind of the Assessing Officer, stands removed by virtue of the Legislature, incorporating in the Statute, the necessary clarificatory amendment. We may only indicate that during the course of the arguments, our attention was drawn to the "Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2015" whereby

Batliboi Renewable Energy Soluations Private Limited, Chennai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 813/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

Audit Report. But the assessee claimed it in the return of income against the Audit Report. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the clarificatory amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 and confirmed the additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. (ii) The CPC processed the return

Electrical India, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 789/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

Audit Report. But the assessee claimed it in the return of income against the Audit Report. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the clarificatory amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 and confirmed the additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. (ii) The CPC processed the return