Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Pune v....

Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Pune v. Shri Shankar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited

High Court In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Pune v. Shri Shankar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited
Date of order
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Pune v. Shri Shankar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 2.The question of law raised in the appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of the delay in depositing the amount as per Article 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.

Decision: 3.In the result, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4990 OF 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax - IV, Pune..Appellant. Versus Shri Shankar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.S.N. Inamdar for the respondent. P.C. : CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ. DATE : 17[th] January, 2011. 1.Not on board. Taken up on board by consent of the parties. 2.The question of law raised in the appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of the delay in depositing the amount as per Article 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The finding of fact recorded in this appeal is that the amount was deposited within the grace period prescribed under the Scheme. The above question is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Alam Extrusions Limited reported in 319 ITR 306. 3.In the result, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan