JUDGMENT A. M. Sapre J.-This is income-tax reference made under section 256(1) of Income-tax Act to this court at instance of assessee by Tribunal to answer following questions of law said to arise out of order passed by Tribunal, dated August 31, 1998, in I. T. A. No. 65/ Ind/1994: " 1. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal erred in law in not holding appellant entitled to deduction of funded interest amounting to Rs. 2,89,61,025 under section 43B of Income-tax Act (` Act' )? 2. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal erred in law in not holding that by funding of interest whereby outstanding interest got converted into principal amount of loan, outstanding interest was actually paid in terms of section 43B of Act? 3. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal erred in law in not holding that outstanding interest liability having been funded on October 25, 1989, actual payment thereof took place before December 31, 1989, due date for filing return for assessment year 1989-90, entitling appellant to claim deduction in respect of funded interest under section 43B of Act? 4. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal erred in law in not holding that conversion of outstanding interest up to March 31, 1989, into rupees term loan had taken place on October 25, 1989, even though deed of agreement was executed on July 16, 1990?" Heard Shri H. Y. Mehta and Smt. S. H. Mehta, learned counsel for applicant/assessee and Shri R. L. Jain, senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for non-applicant/Revenue. At outset, we may mention that controversy involved in this reference is now narrowed down to large extent because during pendency of this reference, Parliament amended section 43B by Finance Act, 2006, retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1989, and added Explanations 3C and 3D which read as under: " 12. Amendment of section 43B.-In section 43B of Income-tax Act,- (a) after Explanation 3B, following Explanation shall be inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect from 1st day of April, 1989, namely:- ` Explanation 3C.-For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that deduction of any sum, being interest payable under clause (d) of this section, shall be allowed if such interest has been actually paid and any interest referred to in that clause which has been converted into loan or borrowing shall not be deemed to have been actually paid.' (b) after Explanation 3C as so inserted, following Explanation shall be inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect from 1st day of April, 1997, namely:- "Explanation 3D.-For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that deduction of any sum, being interest payable under clause (e) of this section, shall be allowed if such interest has been actually paid and any interest referred to in that clause which has been converted into loan or advance shall not be deemed to have been actually paid'." In view of Explanation 3C, question referred to this court stands answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee. In other words, in light of Explanation 3C appended to section 43B with effect from April 1, 1989, view taken by Tribunal on interpretation of unamended section 43B has to be upheld as being in accord with legislative intent brought on statute book in form of Explanation 3C to section 43B. Since Explanation 3C is brought on statute book retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1989, and hence, it will have its application to this case as well because question referred to this court arises out of assessment year 1989-90. It cannot be disputed that any legislative change, if brought on statute book while pendency of lis and have material bearing over controversy involved has got to be taken into consideration for deciding lis or for answering question, as case may be. It cannot be ignored by courts. amendment made in section 43B by Parliament with retrospective effect fully applies to this case and, hence, this court cannot ignore its impact on this reference. Indeed, any statute if brought on statute book retrospectively has same effect like statute when enacted prospectively. In substance, question that fell for consideration and was being debated in this reference in form of questions referred at instance of assessee was whether assessee is entitled to claim benefit of deduction of funded interest under section 43B which has been converted into loan or borrowing by agreement between lender and assessee. In other words, whether it can be said to be case of actual payment of interest amount made by assessee within meaning of section 43B so as to entitle them to claim its deduction? If contention of assessee was that it tantamount to actual payment within meaning of section 43B then contention of Revenue was to its contrary. As observed supra, Explanation 3C has now in clear terms provided that such conversion of interest amount into loan shall not be deemed to be regarded as " actually paid" amount within meaning of section 43B. In view of clear legislative mandate removing this doubt and making intention of Legislature clear in relation to such transaction, it is not now necessary for this court to interpret unamended section 43B in detail, nor is it necessary for this court to take note of facts in detail as also submissions urged in support of various contentions except to place reliance on Explanation 3C to section 43B and answer questions against assessee and in favour of Revenue. In view of foregoing discussion and in light of Explanation 3C appended to section 43B, quoted supra, we answer questions referred to this court against assessee and in favour of Revenue. No costs. *** Eicher Motors Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax