Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2267 2014 SLD 2267 (2014) 366 ITR 1
Bombay High Court
IT Appeal No. 399 of 2012, JULY 11, 2014
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ
A.R. Malhotra for the Appellant. K. Gopal and Jitendra Singh for the
Respondent

Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Mumbai

v.

Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd.

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT B.P. Colabawalla, J. - This Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax - 4 against the judgment and order dated 26th August 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'H' Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the ITAT"). The Assessment Year in question is 2006-07. Mr Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that in the facts of the present case, substantial questions of law arise in this Appeal and they read as under :- "(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was right in allowing the claim of the Assessee on account of delayed payments of P.F. Of employees' contribution amounting to Rs.1,82,77,138/- by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306) ? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.10,00,300/- on bond registration charges and allowing the claim of the assessee u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act 1961 ?" 2. According to Mr Malhotra, the ITAT erred in dismissing the Appeal of the Revenue by upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals). With reference to the first question, the CIT (Appeals) held that the deduction with respect to payment made towards employees' contribution amounting to Rs.1,82,77,138/- was an allowable deduction and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to allow the payment made by the Assessee within the grace period, and disallow the payment made after the grace period. As far as the second question is concerned, he submitted that similarly the ITAT erred in confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals), who allowed the deduction of Rs.10,00,300/- that was incurred by the Assessee towards bond registration charges. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The facts stated briefly are that the Assessee Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing basic chemicals and chemical intermediates and is a Government of India enterprise. The return of income of the Assessee for the assessment Year 2006-07 was filed on 30th November 2006…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492