PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the gratuity liability was unascertained, leading to an enhancement of book profit. The tribunal also addressed the deductibility of leave encashment, considering a Supreme Court judgment.
What were the facts?
The appellant, PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd, appealed a decision concerning the treatment of gratuity and leave encashment liabilities. The core of the dispute was whether these amounts, debited in the Profit and Loss Account, represented unascertained liabilities for the purpose of calculating book profit under Section 115JA.
What were the issues?
The key issues were whether gratuity and leave encashment liabilities debited in the P&L account are unascertained for book profit calculation and whether leave encashment is deductible from income computed under the Income Tax Act.
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 . ITA 739/2010 . PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv. . . . versus . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 02.07.2010 . . CM No.11165/2010 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA No.739/2010 The present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an amount of Rs.68,23,350/- representing the liability towards gratuity and payable to employees and duly debited in the Profit and Loss Account represented an unascertained liability so as to enhance the book profit in terms of provisions of Clause (c) of Explanation to Section 115JA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? . . ITA No.739/2010 page 1 of 2 2. Whether the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not directing, that the amount of Rs.29,60,828/- being the liability towards leave encashment due to the employees could not be deducted from the income computed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inspite of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earthmovers v. CIT, reported in 245-ITR-428-SC? . 3. Whether in the circumstances of the case was not the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal right in not deducting an addition made of Rs.2,83,70,822/- despite the fact that no such deduction was either claimed in the computation of income or was debited in the Profit and Loss Account? . Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the revenue accepts notice. In view of the aforesaid, no further notice need to be issued. . . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . MANMOHAN, J JULY 02, 2010 vk . . . . . . . . . . . ITA No.739/2010 page 2 of 2 . . . .
More judgments on Section 115JA
- DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs M/S. Aragen Life Sciences Limited, HyderabadITA 639/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
- Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd… vs The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), BarodaITA 1246/AHD/2012[2003-04]Status: Disposed19 Jun 2025AY 2003-04
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs Regency Ceramics Limited, HyderabadITA 1350/HYD/2024[1998-99]Status: Disposed2 Jun 2025AY 1998-99
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs Regency Ceramics Limited, HyderabadITA 1340/HYD/2024[2002-2003]Status: Disposed2 Jun 2025AY 2002-2003
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1), Hyderabad vs Regency Ceramics Limited, HyderabadITA 1339/HYD/2024[2001-2002]Status: Disposed2 Jun 2025AY 2001-2002
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026