So Far As Substantial Questions Of Law Nos. 1 And 2 Are Concerned,The Tribunal Rightly Took Note Of The Decision Of The Hon’ble Supreme Court Inmetal Box Compan v. Consequently, Stay Application Stands Dismissed

Form No.(J2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM A N D The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA ITAT No. 151 of 2017Arising out ofIA No. GA 2 of 2017(Old No. GA 1323 of 2017) PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATAVS.M/S. AKZO NOBLE INDIA LIMITED Heard on : 07.12.2021Judgment on : 07.12.2021 Mr. Debasis Choudhury, AdvocateMr. Madhu Jana, Advocate… for the appellantMr. Vishal Karla, AdvocateMr. Avra Mazumder, Advocate… for the respondent T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.: This appeal by the Revenue filed underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in brevity) is directedagainst the composite order dated 27[th ]November, 2015 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench Kolkata in ITA Nos. 850 and 1021/Kol/2007 and ITA Nos. 2048 and 2355/Kol/2005 for the assessmentyear 1996-97. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions oflaw for consideration : 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theLearned Tribunal erred in law in allowing the deduction ofliability on account of the provision of leave encashment whichhas not fallen due within the financial year 1995-1996corresponding to Assessment Year 1996-1997?Learned Tribunal erred in law in allowing the deduction ofliability on account of the provision of leave encashment whichhas not fallen due within the financial year 1995-1996corresponding to Assessment Year 1996-1997? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theLearned Tribunal erred in allowing the deduction of VoluntaryRetirement Scheme (VRS) payments which is payable in futureyears and not crystallized expenditure of this year is in thenature of provision to meet the future liability?Learned Tribunal erred in allowing the deduction of VoluntaryRetirement Scheme (VRS) payments which is payable in futureyears and not crystallized expenditure of this year is in thenature of provision to meet the future liability? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theLearned Tribunal erred in holding the consideration received onsale proceeds of assessee’s chemical undertaking is not liable totax as short term capital gain under Section 50 of the Income TaxAct or as long term capital gain?Learned Tribunal erred in holding the consideration received onsale proceeds of assessee’s chemical undertaking is not liable totax as short term capital gain under Section 50 of the Income TaxAct or as long term capital gain? We have heard Mr. Jana, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and Mr. Vishal Karla, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Mazumderfor the respondent/assessee. So far as substantial questions of law Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned,the Tribunal rightly took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inMetal Box Company of India Ltd. Vs. Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 SC whichwas followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT[2000] 245 ITR 428 SC. Therefore, we find there is no error in the orderpassed by the Tribunal. Hence, question Nos. 1 and 2 are decided against theRevenue. In so far as substantial question of law No. 3 is concerned, inassessee’s own case in ITAT 31 of 2018 dated 24[th] November, 2021, we havedismissed the Revenue’s appeal and decided the question in favour of therespondent/assessee. Thus, following the said decision, the substantialquestion No. 3 is also answered against the Revenue. In the result, theappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and all the three substantialquestions of law are answered against the Revenue. Consequently, stay application stands dismissed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) I agree. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) GH/RS