9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income Tax, reported in 315 ITR 312 (M.P) wherein the following view was taken. "In view of Explanation 3C, the question referred to this court stands answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In other words, in the light of Explanation 3C appended to section 43B with effect from April 1, 1989, the view taken by the Tribunal on interpretation of unamended section 43B has to be upheld as being in accord with the legislative intent brought on the statute book in the form of Explanation 3C to section 43B. Since Explanation 3C is brought on the statute book retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1989, and hence, it will have its application to this case as well because the question referred to this court arises out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarded as "actually paid" amount within the meaning of section 43B. In view of clear legislative mandate removing this doubt and making the intention of the Legislature clear in relation to such transaction, it is not now necessary for this court to interpret the unamended section 43B in detail, nor is it necessary for this court to take note of facts in detail as also the submissions urged in support of various contentions except to place reliance on Explanation 3C to section 43B and answer the questions against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of Explanation 3C appended to Section 43B, quoted supra, we answer the questions referred to this court against the assessee and in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to as "the Act" for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94." The explanation which was sought to be pressed into service by the Revenue was introduced by the Finance Bill, 1999 and the Bill expressly stated that the Explanation would be operative with effect from 1st April, 2000. Therefore, the question was whether in spite of the aforesaid clarification in the Bill itself, the Explanation could be applied with retrospective effect. This question was answered by the Supreme Court in the negative. In the present case, Explanation 3C added to section 43B has specifically been made retrospective with effect from 1st April, 1989. It is, therefore, not possible for us to hold that Explanation 3C would nonetheless apply prospectively as co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
