Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.23 seconds)
The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Tata Institute Of Social Science on 26 March, 2019 cites

S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc vs V.R. Pattabiraman Etc on 24 January, 1985

(ix) We note that, in the present proceedings, the Assessing Officer had found on facts that the Respondent had received in the previous year relevant to the subject Assessment Year grant from the Government which were 56% of the total receipts of the institution i.e. in excess of 50%. Besides, it was also found that the Institution received grants from the Government of Rs.12.79 crores out of the total expenditure of Rs.22.49 crores. This was undisputedly in excess of 50% but less that 75% of the total expenditure. Therefore, on both tests i.e. percentage of Government grant in context of total receipts was in excess of 50% and percentage of Government grant in the context of total expenditure was also in excess of 50%. Thus, the respondent satisfies the requirement now introduced by the explanation. The S.R.JOSHI 12 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2019 03:30:00 ::: itxa-1179-2013-group object and purpose of an Explanation as held by the Supreme Court in S. Sundaram Pillai Vs. Pattabiraman, AIR 1985 (SC) 582 is amongst other things to clarify any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment. In fact, our attention was invited to the Explanatory Notes to the provisions of Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 by which the Explanation to Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act was introduced as found in the Circular No.1 of 2015 dated 21 st July, 2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In the above Circular, the raison detre to introduce the Explanation to Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act was that in the absence of definition of the phrase 'substantially financed by the Government' therein has led to litigation and varying decision of various judicial fora, leading to uncertainty in this regard. Thus, it is clear that the Explanation to Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act was to clarify the position/meaning of the words 'substantially financed by the Government'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 588 - S M Ali - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs S. K. Roy on 25 April, 1966

(xi) However, the issue is whether the above Explanation which is introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 2015 could be read to be retrospective. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Revenue contends that the Explanation as introduced does not state it is 'clarificatory' and/or 'for removal of doubts'. Therefore, it is only prospective and it should not be given a retrospective effect. This view he submits is further strengthen by the fact that, it was made effective only from 1st April, 2015. The reason being that prior to the Explanation being introduced into the Act, the method of arriving at substantially financed could be different. In fact, it could be qua the total expenditure incurred by the institution or qua the total receipts received by the institution. Therefore, if the Explanation is to be read retrospectively, the orders of the Authorities under the Act would be required to measure the satisfaction of the words 'substantially financed' in terms of an explanation i.e. qua total receipts and not qua total expenditure. Hence, for the purposes of this appeal, we proceed on the basis that the Explanation per se is not retrospective. Nevertheless, as held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. S.K. Roy, AIR 1966 (SC) 1995 that it is recognized principle of constitution that subsequent legislation may be looked at in order to see what is the proper interpretation to be put upon the earlier legislation, where the earlier Act is obscure or ambiguous or readily capable of more than one interpretation. The same principle would apply to an S.R.JOSHI 14 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2019 03:30:00 ::: itxa-1179-2013-group amendment made to an Act to understand the meaning of an ambiguous provision, even when the amendment is not held to be retrospective. This has so been held by the Apex Court in Thirui Menickan & Co. v/s. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1977 SC 518. In the above case, the Court held that an amendment to the Act which is not retrospective may yet be used as an exposition of the Parliamentary intent as contained in the Section even before its amendment. Thus, in the present facts, the same measure as has been clarified by the Explanation introduced by the amendment viz.- grant from Government is in excess of 50% of its total receipts, it is substantially financed by the Government could be taken as the exposition of the Parliamentary intent of the unamended Section. Thus, without holding the Explanation to Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act, inserted into the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2015, is retrospective, the same is being used as an aid in construing the ambiguous provision. Therefore, in the present facts the Revenue's appeal is required to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 53 - Full Document
1   2 Next