https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326441 The Tribunal modified its earlier appellate order because it had not expressly considered the assessee's reliance on later authority treating the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) as declaratory, retrospective and curative. It held that this omission justified recalling the order to that extent and directed fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer in light of the retrospective operation of the proviso. The Tribunal also noted the related section 201(1) principle that no default survives where the resident payee has filed a return and paid tax on the income embedded in the payment. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Apr 2016 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326441 The Tribunal modified its earlier appellate order because it had not expressly considered the assessee's reliance on later authority treating the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) as declaratory, retrospective and curative. It held that this omission justified recalling the order to that extent and directed fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer in light of the retrospective operation of the proviso. The Tribunal also noted the related section 201(1) principle that no default survives where the resident payee has filed a return and paid tax on the income embedded in the payment. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326441