TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms Tribunal's decision on retrospective tax amendment, settles conflicting interpretations.</h1> <h3>Manarkattu Brothers (Pvt.) Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> The court affirmed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to rectify the appellate order in favor of the Revenue regarding the retrospective ... Assessment Year, High Court, Sales Tax Issues:1. Interpretation of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the retrospective applicability of amendments.2. Rectification of appellate order by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal based on conflicting High Court decisions on the interpretation of section 43B.Analysis:Issue 1: The court considered the applicability of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in light of retrospective amendments introduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Finance Act, 1988, and Finance Act, 1989. The Finance Act, 1989, introduced a deeming provision through Explanation 2, effective from April 1, 1984. The court held that the deeming provision made it clear that any sum payable, even if not due within the relevant year, should be considered under the amended provision. Referring to past judgments, the court concluded that the issue was settled, leaving no room for further debate. Therefore, the court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to rectify the appellate order in favor of the Revenue.Issue 2: The Tribunal rectified the original order based on the retrospective amendment of section 43B by the Finance Act, 1989. The Revenue argued that the amendment constituted a mistake of law, justifying rectification. The assessee contended that the Tribunal's finding on the applicability of the amended law precluded the need for rectification. However, the Tribunal noted conflicting decisions of different High Courts on the interpretation of the amendment, leading to a question of law. The court, relying on previous judgments, held that the issue was settled, and the Tribunal was justified in rectifying the order. Consequently, the court answered both questions in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, directing the judgment to be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
