The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.tata Infomedia Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2026 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai Versus M/s.Tata Infomedia Limited ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.D.K. Kamwal for the appellant.Mr.Subhash Shetty for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 28[th] February 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 1999-2000, following questions of law have been formulated for our consideration. “a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,43,976/- being expenditure incurred on VRS for the workers and erred in not appreciating that the expenditure incurred resulted in an enduring benefit and was of capital nature ?Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,43,976/- being expenditure incurred on VRS for the workers and erred in not appreciating that the expenditure incurred resulted in an enduring benefit and was of capital nature ? b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition under Section 43B read with Section 2(24) and 36(1)(va) in respect of PF and ESIC contribution made after the due date and erred in not appreciating the fact that the payments for ESIC were not made with in the time permissible under the ESIC Act ?Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition under Section 43B read with Section 2(24) and 36(1)(va) in respect of PF and ESIC contribution made after the due date and erred in not appreciating the fact that the payments for ESIC were not made with in the time permissible under the ESIC Act ? 2.So far as question (a) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the issue is concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Bhor Industries reported in 264 ITR 180. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (a). 3.So far as question (b) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Alum Extrusions reported in 319 ITR 306. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (b). 4.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)