2001 PLP 2532 (PTD)

‑‑‑‑Special deduction‑‑‑Computation of special deduction‑‑‑Law applicable‑. ‑Decision by Supreme Court that S.80AB was declaratory and had retrospective operation‑‑‑Decision could not ‑be reconsidered on ground that CBDT Circular stated that S.80AB was prospective in operation‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 80AB. (b) Income-tax‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Central Board of Direct Taxes‑‑‑Circular‑‑‑Decision of Supreme Court cannot be reconsidered on the basis of a circular of CBDT. The judgment in H.H. Sir Rama Varma v. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 433 (SC) noted that sections 80AA and 80AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were introduced at one and the same point of time and that section 80AA was given retrospective operation with effect from April 1, 1968. It noted that it was held in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC) that section 80AA was declaratory of the law as it always had been since April 1, 1968. On a parity of reasoning it vas held in the judgment in H. H. Sir Rama Varma v. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 433 (SC) that section 80AB was also enacted to declare the law as it always stood. Whether, therefore, the circulars of the Board have stated that section 80AB was prospective is of no relevance and the judgment cannot be reconsidered on that ground. Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC) and H.H. Sir Rama Varma v. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 433 (SC) ref. Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (Sunil Dogra, Manu Nair, Ms. Sayali Phatak and Suresh A. Shroff & Co:, Advocates with him) for Appellant. K .N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Respondent. We are not impressed by the submission on behalf of the appellant that the judgment. of this Court in the case of H.H. Sir Rama Varma v. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 433, .needs reconsideration by a larger Bench. That judgment notes that sections 80AA and ‑80AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were introduced at one and the same point of time and that section 80AA was given retrospective operation with effect from April 1, 1968. It notes that it was held in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC), that section 80AA was declaratory of the law as it always had been since April 1, 1968. On a parity of reasoning, it was held in the judgment in H. H. Sir Rama Varma (1994) 205 ITR 433 (SC) that section 80AB was also enacted to declare the law as it always stood. Whether, therefore, the circulars of the Board have stated that section 80AB was prospective is of‑no relevance and the judgment cannot be reconsidered on that ground. The appeal is covered against the appellant by the judgment in the case of H.H. Sir Rama Varma (1994) 205 ITR 433 (SC). The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. M.B.A./979/FC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.