Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Farmson Pharmaceutical Gujaratp Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 333 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH ======================================================== 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? ----------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus FARMSON PHARMACEUTICAL GUJARATP LTD ---------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MIHIR JOSHI with MR M R BHATT for Petitioner SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and �� MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH Date of decision: 13/04/98 ORAL JUDGEMENT [Per : Abichandani, J.] �The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sales tax paid after the close of the previous year but before the due date of filing of return under Section 139 (1) was allowable as a deduction in Asstt. Year 1985-86 when proviso to section 43B was inserted with effect from 1st April, 1988 ? " �The question referred to this Court now stands concluded by the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Allied Motors (P) Limited vs. C.I.T., reported in 224 ITR 677 in which the view expressed by this High Court in C.I.T vs. Chandulal Venechand reported in 209 ITR 7 was approved by the Supreme Court. In Chandulal Venechand's case, this Court while construing the provisions of Section 43-B had taken a view that the proviso to Section 43-B of the Act related back to the date when Section 43-B came into operation i.e., April 1, 1984. It was held that such liability would therefore be allowable as a deduction provided the assessee established that it was discharged by actual payment before the date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under Section 139 (1) of the Act in respect of relevant previous year in which the liability had been incurred.� �In view of this settled legal position, the question referred to this Court is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. ����**** Prakash*