Case Law Details
Explore the intricacies of Section 263 under the Income Tax Act with the Supreme Court’s perspective in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282. The retrospective amendment in 2005, addressing the complexities of Section 80HHC, does not trigger Section 263. The court emphasizes the existence of two plausible views on ‘profits’ at the time of the Commissioner’s order in 1997. Uncover the nuanced interpretation of ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ and the significance of the 2005 amendment in this insightful judgment.
The problem with Section 80HHC is that it has been amended eleven times. Different views existed on the day when the Commissioner passed the above order. Moreover, the mechanics of the section have become so complicated over the years that two views were inherently possible. Therefore, subsequent amendment in 2005 even though retrospective will not attract the provision of Section 263 particularly when as stated above we have to take into account the position of law as it stood on the date when the Commissioner passed the order dated March 5,1997, in purported exercise of his powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Commissioner Of Income-Tax.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
i will add retrospective amendments should beset aside as a rule, as rue of law need to prevail.
you may be a some parliament yet you need to be governed strictly by Art 265 of the Constitution of India which is a superior document that governs the people, it means constitutional amendments are indeed some faulty concept as originally there were only 365 articles in the constitution document. parliamentarians need to ponder over, so too the Apex court by judicial review,as judicial review strictly work on the basis of original 365 articles only and subsidiary amendments should not govern the judicial review mechanism, as many constitutional amendments have two meanings, what is favorable to overall general pubic should have precedence over the amendments , after all constituent assembly represented all Indian peoples. Founders of constitution are even today indeed more mature to any parliament members that should be the view Apex court need to accept is my view, as several times no constitutional amendment is accepted by total constitutional court bench, is the valid consideration by any hon Apex court.
Hon ct is right. Court is not concerned with revenue,but it has to do justice, after all justice is conceived as ideal .
When a section is amended eleven times tantamounts to the view that section is ill drafted is the real meaning.