https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396584 The Karnataka HC treated the Finance Act, 2010 amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act as curative, because it removed an unintended omission, resolved anomalies and made the provision workable. On that reasoning, the proviso was read as supplying an obvious omission and was given retrospective effect to reflect legislative intent. The Court noted that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court and followed earlier authority taking the same view. The disallowance sustained on the contrary interpretation could not stand. en-us Mon, 29 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396584 The Karnataka HC treated the Finance Act, 2010 amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act as curative, because it removed an unintended omission, resolved anomalies and made the provision workable. On that reasoning, the proviso was read as supplying an obvious omission and was given retrospective effect to reflect legislative intent. The Court noted that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court and followed earlier authority taking the same view. The disallowance sustained on the contrary interpretation could not stand. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396584