Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Finance Act, 2013
Section 43B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
Section 43CA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ansal Landmark Townships (P) Ltd on 25 August, 2017
In support of this proposition, I find support from Hon'ble Delhi High
Court's judgment in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd.[(2015) 377 ITR
635 (Del)], wherein approving the reasoning adopted an order authored by me during my
tenure at Agra bench [i.e Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (2014) 149 ITD 363 (Agra)] which
centred on the principle that when legislature is reasonable and compassionate enough to
undo the undue hardship caused by the statute "such an amendment in law, in view of the
well settled legal position to the effect that a curative amendment to avoid unintended
consequences is to be treated as retrospective in nature even though it may not state so
specifically". In this case, it was specifically observed, and it was this observation which was
reproduced with approval by Their Lordships, as follows:
Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur on 19 January, 2017
In support of this proposition, I find support from Hon'ble Delhi High
Court's judgment in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd.[(2015) 377 ITR
635 (Del)], wherein approving the reasoning adopted an order authored by me during my
tenure at Agra bench [i.e Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (2014) 149 ITD 363 (Agra)] which
centred on the principle that when legislature is reasonable and compassionate enough to
undo the undue hardship caused by the statute "such an amendment in law, in view of the
well settled legal position to the effect that a curative amendment to avoid unintended
consequences is to be treated as retrospective in nature even though it may not state so
specifically". In this case, it was specifically observed, and it was this observation which was
reproduced with approval by Their Lordships, as follows:
Commr.Of Income Tax vs M/S Alom Extructions Limited on 25 November, 2009
[8] Their Lordships were pleased to hold that this reasoning and rationale of this decision
"merits acceptance". The same principle, when applied in the present context, leads to the
conclusion that the present amendment, being an amendment to remove an apparent
incongruity which resulted in undue hardships to the taxpayers, should be treated as
retrospective in effect. Quite clearly therefore, even when the statute does not specifically
state so, such amendments, in the light of the detailed discussions above, can only be treated
as retrospective and effective from the date related statutory provisions was introduced.
Viewed thus, the proviso to Section 50 C should also be treated as curative in nature and with
retrospective effect from 1st April 2003, i.e. the date effective from which Section 50C was
introduced. While the Government must be complimented for the unparalleled swiftness with
ITA No. 2412/Ahd/16 [Hansaben B. Prajapati vs. ITO]
A.Y. 2012-13 -6-
which the Easwar Committee recommendations, as accepted by the Government, were
implemented, I, as a judicial officer, would think this was still one step short of what ought to
have been done inasmuch as the amendment, in tune with the judge made law, ought to have
been effective from the date on which the related legal provisions were introduced. As I say
so, in addition to the reasoning given earlier in this order, I may also refer to the
observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusion Ltd. [(2009) 319
ITR 306 SC)], to the following effect:
1