SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

B.K.HALDAR, N.R.S.GANESAN
Elico Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Hyderabad – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N.R. Siva Swamy,K. Krishna Murthy

ORDER

N.R.S. Ganesan, Judicial Member. - This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-II, Hyderabad, dated 8-10-2003, and relates to assessment year 2001-02. The only issue that arises for consideration is with regard to disallowance of Rs. 17,44,946 and Rs. 3,47,385 being belated payments made towards Provident Fund and ESI respectively.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows : For the assessment year 2001-02, the due date for filing of return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was 31-10-2001. The assessee paid all the contributions before 25-10-2001. These facts are recorded in the assessment order, which are not disputed by the revenue. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the contributions paid by the assessee before the due date for filing of the return under section 139(1), could be allowed under the Income-tax Act?

3. Shri N.R. Siva Swamy, learned representative for the assessee, submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 6771, considered the first proviso to section 43B and held that the first proviso was retrospective in operation. The learned rep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top