TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision workable. A proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the Section as a whole. Thus, it was held that amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 in Section 40(a)(ia) being curative in nature is required to be given retrospective operation. The aforesaid decision was followed by a division bench of this Court in the case of SANTOSH KUMAR SHETTY [2015 (8) TMI 232 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . The issue with regard to retrospectivity of Section 40(a)(ia) is no longer res integra and is answered by SC in favour of assessee - I.T.A. NO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the contravention of said chapter invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) is not valid in law on the facts and circumstances of the case? (v) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in refusing to rectify under section 254(2) of the Act, the order dated 4.4.2012 passed by the Tribunal allowing the appeal preferred by the revenue on the facts and circumstance of the case? (vi) Whether the authorities below justified in law in levying interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and export of ready made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. The tribunal vide order dated 23.11.2012 dismissed the miscellaneous petition. In the aforesaid factual background, the assessee has approached this court. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the assessee submitted that the first substantial question of law is no longer res integra, as the same has already been answered by Supreme Court in CIT VS. CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY, 404 ITR 654 (SC), wherein it has been held that amendment in Section 40(a)(ia) brought about by Finance Act, 2010 is curative in nature and has retrospective operation. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the first substantial question of law framed by a bench of this court has to be answered in favour of the assessee and the remaining questions of law ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous year in which such tax has been paid. 6. The issue whether the aforesaid amendment being curative in nature has retrospective operation was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY supra and it was held that the purpose of amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 is to solve the anomalies and proviso was inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable. It was further held that a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the Section as a whole. Thus, it was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
