9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1.2006 (no. 2 of 2006) made in the light of the amendments questioned - Held that:- Supreme Court in ‘Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Avani Exports’ (2015 (4) TMI 193 - SUPREME COURT), which affirmed the declaration and held that the retrospectivity ascribed to the amendments, was unconstitutional. Consequently, the amendments became, in effect, prospective in nature. This Court notices that in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate for respondents in item no. 13. MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL) In all these cases, retrospective amendment to Sections 28 and 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('the Act') and the validity of CBDT Circular dated 17.1.2006 (no. 2 of 2006 ), made in the light of the amendments, has been called into question. 2. The petitioner also seeks consequential relief by way of quashing of orders, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India', (2014) 46 taxmann.com 341 (Delhi) had also concluded that the amendment could not be treated as retrospective and directed further relief. In the light of these developments, the Court is of the opinion that the provisions are to be treated as prospective and not retrospective; the reliefs in these proceedings are therefore, to be granted. Writ petitions are allowed in terms of the decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
