Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax I, Chandi...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax I, Chandigarh v. M/S Bhushan Limited

High Court 29 Nov 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax I, Chandigarh v. M/S Bhushan Limited
Date of order
29 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax I, Chandigarh v. M/S Bhushan Limited, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: In view of above, the issue being covered against therevenue, this appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. ITA No.196 of 2007Date of decision: 29.11.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax I, Chandigarh -----Appellant Vs. M/s Bhushan Limited ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:-Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue undersection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’)against order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’ in ITANo.743/CHANDI/2005 for the assessment year 2003-04, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in deleting thedisallowance of Rs.9,78,518/- made on account ofemployer’s contribution towards ESI and PF paid afterthe due date, by holding that amendment made insection 43B by the Finance act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004relating to the PF and ESI is applicableretrospectively?” The Assessing Officer disallowed deduction in respectof employer’s contribution towards ESI and PF by holding thatamendment to section 43B of the Act w.e.f 1.4.2004 permittingthe payment to be taken into account if the same was on or beforethe due date applicable, if evidence of payment is furnished byassessee alongwith the return, was not applicable. The Tribunalreversed the said view following its earlier order in Kwality MilkFoods Limited v. ACIT Comibatore (Chennai,) 100 ITD 199(SB). We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute thatthe view taken by the Tribunal is consistent with the view taken bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited,(2009) 319 ITR 306, reiterating the earlier identical view in AlliedMotors P.Limited v. CIT, (1997) 224 ITR 677. In view of above, the issue being covered against therevenue, this appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 29, 2010‘gs’ (Gurdev Singh) Judge
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