Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha...

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur v. M/S. Prabhu Steel Industries Ltd., Nagpur

High Court 27 Oct 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur v. M/S. Prabhu Steel Industries Ltd., Nagpur
Date of order
27 Oct 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur v. M/S. Prabhu Steel Industries Ltd., Nagpur, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Decision: Income Tax Reference is disposed of accordingly.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPURINCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.13/1998 APPLICANT:- RESPONDENT :- The Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur....VERSUS... M/s. Prabhu Steel Industries ltd., Nagpur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Adv. for applicant][S/Shri C.J., N.J., S.C. Thakkar, Advs. for respondent] CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 27.10.2010 1.At the instance of Commissioner of Income Tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer being the amount of provident fund and ESIC contribution paid after the “due date” but during the grace period.” 2.Learned Counsel for both sides state that the aforesaid question is answered against the revenue by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax...Versus...Alom Extrusions Ltd., reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). 3.In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Income Tax Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. SSW JUDGE 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