CIT vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that Provident Fund dues paid after the due date but before the return filing date are allowable as business expenditure. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's status as a Government of India Undertaking and its significant loss.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed Provident Fund dues paid after the due date but before the return filing date, and also based on amendments to Section 43B. The Assessing Officer disallowed these claims.
What were the issues?
Whether Provident Fund dues paid after the due date but before the return filing date are allowable as business expenditure. Whether claims based on amendments to Section 43B are permissible.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 29.04.2011 . Present: Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, counsel for the appellant. . + ITA No. 692/2011 . Two additions made by the Assessing Officer had been deleted by the ITAT and against the order of the ITAT, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant. These additions are: (1) The respondent/assessee had paid Provident Fund dues to the extent of `1558.31 lacs after the stipulated date but before the date of filing of the return. These were not claimed in the original return filed by the assessee. The assessee did not revise its return, as permissible under the law, however, claim was made by way of an application subsequently filed before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. The expenses were disallowed on this ground. (2) The assessee also made claim of Provident Fund dues of `25.03 lacs on the basis of amendments (particularly Second Proviso) under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, which was again disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Insofar as, first disallowance is concerned, it is not in dispute that under the law, such a claim towards Provident Fund dues even when the premiums are made after the due date but before filing of the return is allowable as business expenditure and cannot be rejected in view of the provision under . . Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The only irregularity on the part of the assessee was that it did not make this claim initially in the revised return filed by means of application. Having regard to the fact that the respondent/assessee is the Government of India Undertaking and for the year in question it had shown loss of `153768.75 crores, we are of the opinion that the Department should not be allowed to raise this technicality when the claim is admissible under the law. We make it clear that it is because of the aforesaid reasons and, particularly, that the respondent/assessee is the Government of India Undertaking, we are undertaking this course of action when giving any opinion in question of law. Notice to the respondent limited to second Issue, returnable on 23rd May, 2011. Notice shall indicate that the appeal would be finally heard and disposed of on the next date. . . A.K. SIKRI, J. . . . . APRIL 29, 2011 M.L. MEHTA, J. KA #35
More judgments on Section 43B
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), MumbaiITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
- Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, GurgaonITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, MumbaiITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026