| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
September 25, 2009 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
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…
- 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…
- DIT vs. Samsung Heavy Industries Co Ltd (Supreme Court) Though it was pointed out to the ITAT that there were only two persons working in the Mumbai office, neither of whom was qualified to perform any core activity of the Assessee, the ITAT chose to ignore the same. This being the case, it is clear, therefore, that no permanent…
- Gurunanak Industries vs. Amar Singh (Supreme Court) The primary claim and submission of the appellants is that Amar Singh had resigned as a partner and, therefore, in terms of clause (10) of the partnership deed (Exhibit P-3) dated 6 th May 1981, he would be entitled to only the capital standing in his credit in the books…
- PCIT vs. Ami Industries (India) P Ltd (Bombay High Court) In NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd (supra), the Assessing Officer had made independent and detailed inquiry including survey of the investor companies. The field report revealed that the shareholders were either non-existent or lacked credit-worthiness. It is in these circumstances, Supreme Court held that the onus to establish identity…
- PCIT vs. Khushbu Industries (Bombay High Court) The reopening proceedings under section 148 are bad as necessary sanction/approval had not been obtained in terms of section 151 of the Act. The impugned order of the Tribunal records that the sanction for issuing the impugned notice had been obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax when, in terms…
Recent Comments