SPEARHEAD DIGITAL STUDIO P.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA - 755 / 2008HC Delhi23 December 200915 pages
For Petitioner: PRAKASH KUMAR
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the deletion of the second proviso to Section 43B is retrospective and the case should be governed by the first proviso. Therefore, if the actual payment is made before the return is filed, the deduction is allowable.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited employees' and employers' contributions to provident fund and ESI after the due dates. The Assessing Officer made additions to the income for these delayed deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed deposit of employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, considering the retrospective nature of the deletion of the second proviso to Section 43B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show 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.

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

### ITA No.755 of 2008

%

Reserved on: December 04, 2009 Pronounced on: December 23, 2009

Spearhead Digital Studio P. Ltd.

... Appellant

through:

Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate

**VERSUS**

Commissioner of Income Tax

... Respondent

through:

Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate

CORAM :-

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

- 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? - 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

## A.K. SIKRI, J.

For orders, see ITA No. 1063/2008. JUDGE

(SIDDHARTH MRIDUL) JUDGE

December 23, 2009. nsk

19-24

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

![](_page_1_Picture_3.jpeg)

π

ŗ

ITA No. 1063 of 2006

ITA No.755 of 2008

ITA No. 204 of 2009

ITA No. 1214/2008 with ITA No. 1246/2008 ITA No. 78/2009

% Reserved on: December 04, 2009

Pronounced on: December 23, 2009

1.

<u>ITA No. 1063/2008</u>

Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant

through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal with Mr. Paras Chaudhry, Advocates

**VERSUS**

AIMIL Limited ... Respondent

through: Dr. Rakesh G

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →