2014 (12) TMI 1341

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct on 1.4.2009 as retrospective in-operation. 2. The assessee is an individual dealing in ayurvedic medicines. He filed his return for the assessment year 2005-2006 declaring total income at Rs. 11,27,447/-. The assessing authority disallowed a sum of Rs. 3,08,296/- as contravening Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Further, he held the Income derived by sale of shares as income from business. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal who gave a partial relief under Section 40A(3) by reducing a sum of Rs. 52,430/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....com 249 has held an amendment made to a taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove "hardships" only of the assessee, not of the Department. Imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship and for that reason Parliament normally make this amended provision effective from the particular date. Where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive constructi....