In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Audco India Ltd, the High Court (2005) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: 5398/Bom/1986, forAssessment Year 1983-84, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Actthe Tribunal has referred the following question of law for opinion at theinstance of the Revenue: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that thecont...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICGTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 144 of 1995
The Commissioner of Income Tax
... Applicant.
vs.
M/s. Audco India Ltd.
..... Respondent
Mr. Parag Vyas i/b. H. D. Rathod for Applicant.
Mr. P. D. Damodar i/b. Kanga & Co., for Respondent
CORAM: V. C. DAGAAND A. S. AGUIAR JJ.
Date: 10[th] August, 2005.
P. C. :
1. By this reference arising out of I.T.A. No. 5398/Bom/1986, forAssessment Year 1983-84, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Actthe Tribunal has referred the following question of law for opinion at theinstance of the Revenue:
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that thecontribution of Rs.4,24,857 made by the assessee to
the approved superannuation fund as for the pastservices of the employee admitted to the membership ofthe fund during the year under consideration should beallowed as a deduction?
1. Both counsel appearing for the rival parties agree that the above
questions have been covered by decision of the Apex Court. The
first question is covered by the judgment in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax vs. Sirpur Paper Mills , reported in[1999] 237 ITR 41 (SC) where the Apex Court held that deductions ofcontribution to superannuation fund is allowable as revenueexpenditure. In this view of the matter both the questions referredto us is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assesseeand against the Revenue. Reference accordingly disposed of withno order as to costs.
(V. C. DAGA J. )
-x-
(A. S. AGUIAR J.)
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.