#Retrospective Amendment

ITAT Agra held that a government polytechnic could claim Section 10(23C)(iiiad) exemption for AY 2020-21 without filing a Section 139(4C) return, as the filing condition was introduced only by the Finance Act 2022 amendment. The ruling confirms pre-amendment non-filing was not a condition precedent, aiding institutions that missed prior deadlines.

The Orissa High Court struck down the August 18, 2020 resolution withdrawing SGST reimbursement for cement units under IPR 2015, calling it arbitrary and unconstitutional. The ruling safeguards investors who had undertaken substantial investments based on the original incentive, reinforcing the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

The Kolkata ITAT ruled that the 10 % tolerance under Section 50C is retrospective, striking down the ₹9,94,312 addition for AY 2014-15 because the valuation gap was only 8.5 %. Taxpayers can therefore rely on the tolerance limit for past years, limiting exposure to Section 50C additions when the gap falls within the prescribed range.

Gujarat HC struck down notifications that retroactively stripped exporters of Service Exports from India Scheme benefits, ruling that Section 5 of the Foreign Trade Act cannot be applied retrospectively. The decision safeguards vested export incentives for firms relying on SEIS.

Karnataka High Court ruled that the 2010 Finance Act amendment to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-Tax Act applies only prospectively, preserving the Supreme Court’s territorial-nexus principle. Consequently, taxpayers providing offshore technical services can claim refunds for taxes previously demanded.

Bombay High Court rules that the 2022 amendment to Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which bars appeals for awards below Rs. 1 lakh, applies to pending appeals filed before the amendment. The decision impacts insurers and claimants by dismissing appeals involving smaller compensation amounts, even if filed prior to the amendment.

ITAT Mumbai holds that the 10% safe harbour limit under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act applies retrospectively, setting aside an addition of Rs. 5,59,522 for AY 2017-18. The ruling clarifies that the assessee is liable only for the difference exceeding the 10% threshold between stamp duty value and actual consideration, reinforcing tax certainty for property transactions.

Allahabad HC rules that ad-hoc service cannot be excluded from qualifying service for pension if the employee's right to pension had already crystallized before a retrospective amendment. The judgment protects vested pensionary benefits of employees regularized after prolonged ad-hoc service, ensuring consequential retiral dues including interest.

Bombay High Court rules that enhanced license transfer fees under amended Bombay Prohibition (Privilege Fees) Rules, 1954 cannot apply to applications already approved before the amendment. Petitioners ordered to pay only the original fees with 2% interest, reinforcing the prohibition on retrospective financial burdens in administrative actions.

ITAT Mumbai rules that education cess is not allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act post the retrospective insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 40(a)(ii). The ruling clarifies that cess payments, even if termed as tax, cannot be claimed as business expenditure, impacting corporate tax computations for prior assessment years.

CESTAT Chennai holds that retrospective amendment to Notification No. 41/2012-ST expands 'specified services' to include head office services for exports. Refund claims cannot be rejected on quarter-wise restrictions or pre-amendment interpretations.

Madras High Court holds that retrospective application of service rule amendments denying promotion to surveyors violates accrued rights and established legal principles.