The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Cheminova India Limited
High Court
15 Oct 2007 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Cheminova India Limited
Date of order
15 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Cheminova India Limited, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The appeal was filed on the following question of law. "Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was right in holding that payments made towards Provident Fund are allowable as deduction even if the cheques have been presenetd after the due dates?" .
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
((-1-))
HVN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 640 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Cheminova India Limited ... Respondent
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr. A.K. Jasani for Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: OCTOBER 15, 2007
P.C.
P.C.
. The appeal was filed on the following question of
law.
"Whether, in the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law the
Hon’ble ITAT was right in holding that
payments made towards Provident Fund are
allowable as deduction even if the cheques
have been presenetd after the due dates?"
. This court in CIT Vs. Maharashtra State Seeds
Corporation in Income Tax Application No. 14 of
2000 dated 25.11.2000 has also taken a view that if
((-2-))
the amount is paid within the grace period, then it
would be said to be paid within the due date and
amount will be allowed to be deducted as
expenditure. This issue was furhter considered and
reiterated by this court in Income Tax Appeal Nko.
1155 of 2007 in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. WMI
Cranes Ltd. decided on 9th October, 2007.
. Considering the above, the question as raised
would not arise. Consequently appeal dismissed.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, 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.