Case LawHigh Court › Leela Lace Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd v...

Leela Lace Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 (2

High Court 13 Dec 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Leela Lace Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 (2
Date of order
13 Dec 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Leela Lace Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 (2, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the disallowance in respect of Provident Fund and ESIC payment of Rs.18,98,592 by applying the provisions of section 43B of the Act?

Decision: In this view of the matter, for the reasons stated therein, the Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

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

SSM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2010 Leela Lace Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd..... Appellant VERSUS Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-8 (2).... Respondent Mr. Nitesh Joshi a/w Mr. A. K. Jasani for Appellant.Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondent. CORAM:J. P. DEVDHAR and R. M. SAVANT, J.J. DATED:DECEMBER 13, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard. 2.Admit on the following substantial question of law: “A. Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the disallowance in respect of Provident Fund and ESIC payment of Rs.18,98,592 by applying the provisions of section 43B of the Act? B. Whether the Tribunal ought to have held that amendment to proviso to section 43B brought tin by the Finance Act, 2003 should have retrospective effect or in the least should apply to assessments made after the amendment? ” SSM 3.The Counsel for the parties state that the question raised in this Appeal are covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) in favour of the assessee. In this view of the matter, for the reasons stated therein, the Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. (R. M. SAVANT, J) (J. P. DEVDHAR, 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