Income Tax Appeal v. M/S.a.m. Bhatkal Financial Services
High Court
16 Mar 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Income Tax Appeal v. M/S.a.m. Bhatkal Financial Services
Date of order
16 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Income Tax Appeal v. M/S.a.m. Bhatkal Financial Services, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Revenue is in Appeal on the following question:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs.48,33,233/- u/s.43B and 36(1)(va) made by the Assessing Officer in respect of del...
Decision: The order of the Tribunal to that extent is set aside.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
(-1-)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1006 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax. .Appellant
Vs.
M/s.A.M. Bhatkal Financial Services
Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the
Appellant
Mr. S.G. Gokhale, for the Respondents.
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: 16th March, 2009
P.C.:
. Revenue is in Appeal on the following
question:-
(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances
of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal
was right in confirming the order of the
CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of
Rs.48,33,233/- u/s.43B and 36(1)(va) made by
the Assessing Officer in respect of delayed
payment of employers and employees
contribution to Provident Fund and FSIC
etc."
2. The question arose from the order of the
Tribunal dated 20th November, 2007 for the
(-2-)
assessment year 2003-2004. The proviso came to be
inserted by amendment which came into effect from
1st April, 2004. That, however, would not apply to
the present case considering that the assessment
year is 2003-2004.
4. The learned Counsel draws our attention to
the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income
Tax vs. Godaveri (Mannar) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Ltd., 298 ITR 149 where this Court has taken the
view that considering Section 43B only in the event
the assessee had paid the dues within the grace
period could the assessee claim the allowance. In
the instant case the employees contribution was not
paid within the grace period, but was paid before
filing of the returns.
5. On behalf of the assessee learned Counsel
relies on the judgment in the case of Allied Motors
(P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, 224 ITR
677 (S.C.). That Judgment had not been considered
by us
in Godaveri (Mannar) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
(supra) as it was not brought to our attention.
. Subsequent to the judgment in Godaveri
(Mannar) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., our
attention was invited to that judgment in
(-3-)
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vinay Cement Ltd.,
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vinay Cement Ltd.,
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vinay Cement Ltd.,
(2007) 213 CTR (S.C.) 268 which was a S.L.P. filed
(2007) 213 CTR (S.C.) 268
(2007) 213 CTR (S.C.) 268
before the Supreme Court arising out the order of
Gauhati High Court. The S.L.P. was dismissed.
Considering the fact that the S.L.P. was dismissed
and after considering as to what would constitute
Commissioner of IncomeTax vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., (2008) 215 CTR(Bom.)150 we have reiterated the view taken in Godaveri
the ratio of the judgment in Commissioner of Income
Tax vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., (2008) 215 CTR
150
(Mannar) Sahakari Karkhana Ltd.
6. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal will
have to be allowed. The order of the Tribunal to
that extent is set aside. Appeal disposed of
accordingly.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)
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.