| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | January 10, 2009 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | |
| CITATION: | |
The Q whether the Proviso to s. 113 is retrospective or prospective referred to Full Bench
In CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta 297 ITR 322, the Supreme Court held that the Provio to s. 113 (which imposes surcharge on block assessments), though inserted only with effect from 1.6.2002, was applicable to searches conducted prior to that date as it was ‘clarificatory’ and ‘curative’ in nature.
HELD, however, by another Division Bench that as the said proviso was introduced with effect from 1.6.2002, i.e. with prospective effect “we are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of law that the taxing statute should be construed strictly and a statute, ordinarily, should not be held to have any retrospective effect, it is necessary that the matter be considered by a larger Bench”.
See Also: The bane of retrospective amendments by N. M. Ranka, Advocate and Interpretation of Statutes by Sorabh Soparkar, Advocate.
[…] It appears the attention of the Bench was not drawn to the fact that in CIT vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2009) 17 DTR 353 (SC) / (2009) 221 CTR 409 (SC) the issue has been referred to a larger […]