TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A of the I.T.Act is warranted, since for the relevant year it was not in receipt of any exempt income from the investments made. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the A.O. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised this issue before the ITAT. The learned AR contended that when no exempt income is earned during the year, disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act is not attracted. In support of his contention, the learned AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Principal CIT v. IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. [399 ITR 483 (Delhi)] (ii) Chem Invest Ltd. v. CIT [378 ITR 33 (Delhi)] (iii) Redington India Ltd. v. Addl.CIT (392 ITR 633) (iv) Order of the ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of ITO v. Kerala Ayurveda Ltd. in ITA No.506/Coch/2016 (order dated 14.12.2017). (Wherein it was held that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income.) 5. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the A.O. and the CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, for the relevant year, the assessee was not in receipt of any exempt income on the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provisions of the Income-tax Act and provide that no deduction shall be allowed in relation to exempt income, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act. 7. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years." (emphasis supplied) 6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT, (2005) 12 SCC 717 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: "9. The High Court did not refer to the 1999 Explanation in upholding the inclusion of salary for the field break periods in the assessable income of the employees of the appellant. However, the respondents have urged the point before us. 10. In our view the 1999 Explanation could not apply to assessment years for the simple reason that it had not come into effect then. Prior to introducing the 1999 Explanation, the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate in respect of periods which were prior to 1- 4-1979. It was held that since the Explanation came into force from 1-4-1979, it could not be relied on for any purpose for an anterior period. 14. In the appeal preferred from the decision by the Revenue before this Court, the Revenue did not question this reading of the Explanation by the Kerala High Court, but restricted itself to a question of fact viz. whether the Tribunal had correctly found that the salary of the assessee was paid by a foreign company. This Court dismissed the appeal holding that it was a question of fact. (CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1998) 8 SCC 608] .) 15. Given this legislative history of Section 9(1)(ii), we can only assume that it was deliberately introduced with effect from 1-4- 2000 and therefore intended to apply prospectively [See CIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 485, 494 (para 18) : (1995) 215 ITR 165] . It was also understood as such by CBDT which issued Circular No. 779 dated 14-9-1999 containing Explanatory Notes on the provisions of the Finance Act, 1999 insofar as it related to direct taxes. It said in paras 5.2 and 5.3. "5.2 The Act has expanded the existing Expl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....changes the law as it earlier stood. This was stated in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT, (2005) 12 SCC 717 as follows: 17. As was affirmed by this Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165] a cardinal principle of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. (See also Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 585]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24; Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352; CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482]. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts". 18. ....