Itxa/2331/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 , Mumbai v. M/S. Mangalam Drugs And Orgaanies Ltd

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2331 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4 ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Mangalam Drugs & Organics Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant. Mr. V.S. Hadade for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATED : 22ND JUNE, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Heard. Admit on the following questions of law :- (1)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in allowing the delayed payments of employers contribution to PF & ESIC of Rs.2,26,172/- disallowed by the assessing officer when the same was paid beyond due date but within the grace period, though it is accepted that the grace period is given as a relief for non levy of penalty and is not in any way related to regularization of default ?Tribunal erred in allowing the delayed payments of employers contribution to PF & ESIC of Rs.2,26,172/- disallowed by the assessing officer when the same was paid beyond due date but within the grace period, though it is accepted that the grace period is given as a relief for non levy of penalty and is not in any way related to regularization of default ? (2)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in directing the assessing officer to treat the refund of excise duty and receipts from duty drawback as receipts derived from business and hence allowable for deduction u/s.80IA ?ITAT erred in directing the assessing officer to treat the refund of excise duty and receipts from duty drawback as receipts derived from business and hence allowable for deduction u/s.80IA ? 2.By consent, appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3.Counsel for the parties state that the first question is covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Wmi Cranes Ltd. reported in [2010] 326 ITR 523 (Bom). Accordingly, the first question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4.As regards the second question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said question is covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Liberty India V/s. CIT reported in [2009] 183 Taxman 349 (SC). Accordingly, the second question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeal is disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs. (SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)