SC States That A Clarificatory Provision Cannot Impose A New Condition In Tax Laws

CASE BACKGROUNDS

• The Bench of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai saw that Explanation 3C was acquainted with the control of the abuse of the arrangements under Section 43B, by not really paying interest, yet changing over such interest into a new credit.
• A review arrangement in a duty act which is "for the expulsion of questions", can't be ventured to be reviewed even where such language is utilized, on the off chance that it modifies or changes the law as it prior stood.
• The Supreme Court noticed that while holding that Explanation 3C to Section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act is 'clarificatory', it doesn't add another condition reflectively.

CASE PROCCEDINGS

• For this situation, the assessee asserted an allowance under Section 43B, dependent on the issue of debentures in lieu of interest gathered and payable to monetary foundations.
• The Assessing Officer dismissed the case holding that the issuance of debentures was not according to the first agreements on which the credits were in all actuality, and that interest was payable, holding that an ensuing change in the provisions of the arrangement, as they then at that point stood, would be in opposition to Section 43B(d), and would deliver such sum ineligible for derivation.
• The Commissioner of Income permitted the allure, whose request was maintained in advance by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

CASE SUBMISSIONS

• Under the steady gaze of the High Court, the Revenue Department recorded bringing up the issue if regardless of whether the subsidizing of the interest sum via a term advance could add up to genuine installment, as considered by Section 43B of the Income-charge Act.
• The Court saw that in case there be any equivocalness in the reflectively added Explanation 3C, there are three grounded ordinances of translation on act thereto of the Assessee.
• For this situation, since Explanation 3C was added in 2006 with the object of stopping escape clauses, real exchanges of real installments are not intended to be influenced.
• The Bench, in this manner, observing different realities of the case, put away the High court judgment and reestablished the sets of the ITAT.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS CASE?