SARITA HANDA Vs. UOI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 seek to give effect to the retrospective amendments and the CBDT circular.

(3.) This Court had issued Rule and admitted these petitions to hearing. In the meanwhile, the Gujarat High Court vide its judgment in Avani Exports and others v. Commissioner of Income-tax and others, (2012) 348 ITR 391 (Guj) held that the amendments were unconstitutional. That judgment became the subject matter of the appeal to the Supreme Court in 'Commissioner of Income-tax v. Avani Exports', (2015) 58 taxmann.com 100 (SC), which affirmed the declaration and held that the retrospectivity ascribed to the amendments, was unconstitutional. Consequently, the amendments became, in effect, prospective in nature.