R. Devdas J., (Oral v. M/S. Exide Industries Limited, Which Was Decidedon 24.04.2020, In Favour Of The Respondent-Revenue
High Court
17 Nov 2021 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · karhckalaburagi
Parties
R. Devdas J., (Oral v. M/S. Exide Industries Limited, Which Was Decidedon 24.04.2020, In Favour Of The Respondent-Revenue
Date of order
17 Nov 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In R. Devdas J., (Oral v. M/S. Exide Industries Limited, Which Was Decidedon 24.04.2020, In Favour Of The Respondent-Revenue, the High Court (2021) dismissed the appeal under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: DEVDAS J., (ORAL): The substantial question of law that arises for)decision making in this appeal is whether the Tribunalis justified in law in confirming the disallowance ofprovision{Oremployeeleave|encashment|OT Rs.1,23,20,711/- made on the basis of actuarialvaluation by invoking provisions of Section 43B(f) of theAc...
Decision: In that view of the matter, the appeal filed bythe appellant-Assessee stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAKALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OK NOVEMBER 2021 |
PRESENT
THERE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDA
ANT)
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICK RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR.
I.T.A. No.200005/2016
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISHNA GRAMEENA BANK(PRESENTLY PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMIN BANK)RBP.BY ITS GKHNBRAL MANAGKRSRI GOPALA NAIKKUSNOOR ROAD, _GULBARGA-585105
PRESENTLYNO.32, SANGANAKAL ROAD,GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI-583103
. APPELLANT|
(BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSELFOR S.ANNAMALAI AND SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
ASST.COMMISSIONEBR OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 1,2 FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVANSEDAM ROAD, ©
GULBARGA-585105
.. RESPONDEN
(BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 2J6O0A OF THINCOME TAX ACT, PRAYING TO A)FORMULATE THE)SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW As STATED ABOVE.AND ANSWER THR SAME IN FAVOR OF THR APPBLLANT..B) TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS,TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT, IN THE.ORDER PASSHKHD BY THR, INCOMBE TAX APPELLTRIBUNAL,Cc’BENCH,BENGALURUIN|ITA.NO.592/BANG/2014 DATED-06.05.2016 RELATING TO|ASSESSMENT YEAR 2JO1O-11.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,|THIS DAY,R.DEVDAS J©, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The substantial question of law that arises for)decision making in this appeal is whether the Tribunalis justified in law in confirming the disallowance ofprovision{Oremployeeleave|encashment|OT Rs.1,23,20,711/- made on the basis of actuarialvaluation by invoking provisions of Section 43B(f) of theAct?
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri A. Shankar,appearing for the appellant-assessee fairly submits thatthe issue is now covered by a decision of the Hon'bleSupreme Court of India in the case of|Union of India|
vs. M/s. Exide Industries Limited, which was decided|on 24.04.2020, in favour of the respondent-Revenue.
3. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed bythe appellant-Assessee stands dismissed.
Needless to observe that the allowance will be.eranted in the year of payment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sdu
Sd/-
JUDGE
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.