Vivek Krishnan Nair v. The Asstt.commissioner Of Income Tax-20(3
High Court
18 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Vivek Krishnan Nair v. The Asstt.commissioner Of Income Tax-20(3
Date of order
18 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Vivek Krishnan Nair v. The Asstt.commissioner Of Income Tax-20(3, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal shall accordingly stand allowed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO. O. C. J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1440 OF 2009
Vivek Krishnan Nair.
...Appellant.
Vs.
The Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax-20(3).
...Respondent.
....
Mr. Atul K.Jasani for the Appellant.Smt.Padma Divakar for the Respondent.
.....
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
January 18, 2010.
P.C. :
The appeal was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:
“(a)Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the disallowance in respect of Employer’s Provident Fund of Rs.27,18,185/- and ESIC contributions of Rs.17,51,516/- by invoking the provisions of Section 43B of the Act?
-(b)Whether the Tribunal ought to have held that amendment to the proviso to Section 43B brought in by the Finance Act, 2003 should have retrospective effect or in the least should apply to assessments made after the amendment?”
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee and Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Revenue are agreed in stating before the
Court that the issues, which arise in the appeal, are covered by the
judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances, the questions of law are answered in terms of the law laid down in Alom Extrusions (supra). The appeal shall accordingly stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)
( J.P.Devadhar, 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.