UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the payment of ₹ 44,51,267/- for leave encashment in AY 2017-18 is allowable under Section 43B(f) of the Act, irrespective of when the provision was made. It clarified that appellate authorities, unlike Assessing Officers, have the power to admit additional grounds, citing the decisions in Goetze (India) Ltd. and Jai Parabolic Springs Limited. The AO was directed to allow the deduction upon verification of payment evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Universal Cables Limited, filed its return for AY 2017-18, which was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee sought deduction of ₹ 44,51,267/- for leave encashment paid during AY 2017-18, which pertained to provisions made in earlier assessment years (2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05) and had been disallowed at that time. The Ld. CIT(A) denied this claim, refusing to admit it as an additional ground, citing the Goetze (India) Ltd. decision.
What were the issues?
Whether a claim for deduction of leave encashment, disallowed in earlier years on an accrual basis but actually paid in the current year, can be allowed under Section 43B(f) as an additional ground before the appellate authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(8)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT1,842 citing157 Taxmann 1 · 2006 · SC
- Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT1,372 citing187 ITR 688 · 1991 · SC
- CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders956 citing252 CTR 151 · 2012 · HC
- CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.349 citing306 ITR 42 · 2008 · HC · Read judgment
- Exide Industries Ltd. v. Union of India320 citing164 Taxmann 9 · 2007 · HC
- Union of India v. Exide Industries146 citing425 ITR 1 · 2020 · SC
- CIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd.67 citing83 Taxmann.com 365 · 2006 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: 12-June-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)- Prayagraj [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘Addl/JCIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18 dated 14.11.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 10.12.2019.
More judgments on Section 43B(f)
- State Bank of India, Mumbai vs ACIT-Circle- 2(2)(1), MumbaiITA 3429/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- DCIT- 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs State Bank of India, MumbaiITA 3395/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs State Bank of India, MumbaiITA 2429/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- State Bank of India, Mumbai vs Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), MumbaiITA 2390/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Hp Computing and Printing Systems India… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2000/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026