Itxa/6676/2010 Of Simplex Castings Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 3 (3)
High Court
14 Jul 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/6676/2010 Of Simplex Castings Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 3 (3)
Date of order
14 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/6676/2010 Of Simplex Castings Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 3 (3), the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Issue: The appeal is admitted on the following question of " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was right in remanding the matter back to the assessing officer with categorical direction to allow the deduction u/s.43B of the Income Tax Act only to the contributio...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6676 OF 2010
M/s. Simplex Castings Ltd.
..Appellant.
V/s.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 3(3), Mumbai
..Respondent.
Ms. Natasha i/b. S.C. Tiwari for the appellant.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ.DATED : 14TH JULY, 2011
P.C. :-
1.law:-
Heard. The appeal is admitted on the following question of
" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was right in remanding the matter back to the assessing officer with categorical direction to allow the deduction u/s.43B of the Income Tax Act only to the contributions made by the appellant on or before the grace period under the provisions of PF, Superannuation Fund and ESI, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Alom Extrusion Ltd. 319 ITR 306 S.C. ? "
3.Counsel for the parties state that the above question stands concluded against the revenue by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). Accordingly, the above question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.