https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12504 A retrospective taxing amendment cannot be sustained merely to overturn a binding interpretation unless it cures a real statutory defect or lacuna. The Karnataka High Court held that the Explanation inserted into section 26(4) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act could operate prospectively, but its retrospective effect from 1 April 1975 was invalid because no curing defect was shown and the amendment was aimed at displacing the earlier judicial view. Demand notices for assessment year 1996-97 based on that retrospective operation therefore could not survive and were quashed. en-us Wed, 03 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 May 2011 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12504 A retrospective taxing amendment cannot be sustained merely to overturn a binding interpretation unless it cures a real statutory defect or lacuna. The Karnataka High Court held that the Explanation inserted into section 26(4) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act could operate prospectively, but its retrospective effect from 1 April 1975 was invalid because no curing defect was shown and the amendment was aimed at displacing the earlier judicial view. Demand notices for assessment year 1996-97 based on that retrospective operation therefore could not survive and were quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12504