Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Exide Industries (Supreme Court)

CIT vs. Exide Industries (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 25, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (exide_industries_s_43Bf_supreme_court.pdf)

Judgement holding s. 43B (f) (leave encashment) as unconstitutional stayed

S. 43B (f) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002 to provide that any sum payable by the assessee as an employer in lieu of any leave at the credit of his employee shall be allowed as a deduction only in the year of actual payment.

The said amendment was enacted to supersede the judgement of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT 245 ITR 428 where it was held that even a provision for leave encashment was deductible on accrual basis.

In Exide Industries Ltd vs. UOI 292 ITR 470, the Calcutta High Courts struck down 43B (f) as being arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the apex Court decision in the case of BEML on the ground that the objects and reasons were silent as to why the amendment was effected and that the amendment was not consistent with s. 43B which was originally inserted to plug evasion of statutory liability.

The said judgement of the Calcutta High Court has now been stayed by the Supreme Court and it has been clarified that the assessee must pay tax as if s. 43B (f) is on the statute though it is entitled to make a claim in its return.

Related Posts:

  • UOI vs. Exide Industries Limited (Supreme Court) The leave encashment scheme envisages the payment of a certain amount to the employees in lieu of their unused paid leaves in a year. The nature of this payment is beneficial and proemployee. However, it is not in the form of a bounty and forms a part of the conditions…
  • CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd (Supreme Court) No doubt, there is a long delay in removing the objections, we are of the opinion that in a case like this the High Court should have condoned the delay in removing the office objections and heard the2matter on merits
  • Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Supreme Court) The property in dispute was mortgaged by BPIL to the Union Bank of India in 2000 and the DRT passed an order of recovery against the BPIL in 2002. The recovery certificate was issued immediately, pursuant to which an attachment order was passed prior to the date on which notice…
  • M/s Vijay Industries vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Reading of Section 80HH along with Section 80A would clearly signify that such a deduction has to be of gross profits and gains, i.e., before computing the income as specified in Sections 30 to 43D of the Act. It is correctly pointed out by Division Bench in the reference order…
  • CIT vs. Classic Binding Industries (Supreme Court) As pointed out above, once the assessees had started claiming deduction under Section 80-IC and the initial Assessment Year has commenced within the aforesaid period of 10 years, there cannot be another initial Assessment Year thereby allowing 100% deduction for the next 5 years also when sub-section (3), in no…
  • Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court) If the assessee had earlier availed deduction under Section 80-IA and Section 80-IB, that would be of no concern inasmuch as on carrying out substantial expansion, which was carried out and completed in the Assessment Year 2006-07, the assessee became entitled to deduction under Section 80-IC from the initial year.…

Related Judgements

  1. M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee had led satisfactory evidence that its business was that of a commission agent and not a trader and 10-11 years had passed, the assessee could not be held responsible for non-appearance of five traders to whom summons … M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme…
  2. Malayala Manorama vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    The AO has no jurisdiction u/s 115J of the Act to go behind the Profit & loss account of the assessee and to make adjustments therein beyond what is expressly provided in s. 115J. An assessee is entitled to provide for depreciation in its books at rates which are…
  3. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health (Supreme Court – Larger Bench) 

    the amendment to Explanation 4 to s. 271(1)(c), though made with effect from 1st April 2003, should be treated as clarificatory and retrospective.Read more ›
  4. Shanti Bhushan vs. UOI (Supreme Court) 

    On facts, though all the members of the collegium including the then Chief Justice of India opposed the appointment of respondent No.2 (Justice Ashok Kumar) as a permanent Judge his term as additional judge was extended from time to time apparently at the behest of the Government. “the then…
  5. Bar of Indian Lawyers vs. D. K. Gandhi (Supreme Court) 

    The State Commission, Delhi, held that services rendered by a Lawyer would not come within the ambit of s. 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the client executes the power of attorney authorizing the Counsel to do certain acts on his behalf and there is no term…