THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KRISHNA GRAMEEN BANK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/6002/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC03004839201317 November 2021Bench: R.DEVDAS,RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the provision for privilege leave encashment is not a deductible liability in the year of provision. Deduction is allowed only in the year of payment.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the deductibility of provision for privilege leave encashment. The assessee claimed it as a deductible liability, while the revenue contested it.

What were the issues?

Whether provision for privilege leave encashment is a deductible liability and if Section 43B(f) was applicable despite an interim order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR I.T.A. No.6002/2013 BETWEEN: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, GULBARGA, GULBARGA ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S KRISHNA GRAMEEN BANK HEAD OFFICE, KHUSNOOR ROAD, GULBARGA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.ANNAMALAI AND SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATES) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND

2 TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2012 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH-A, IN I.T.A.NO.117/BANG/2012, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2011 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HUBLI, IN I.T.A.NO.CT(A) NO.352/HBL/2010-11 AND TO GRANT ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, R.DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The substantial questions of law that arise for decision making in this appeal are: 1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing the deduction of the provision for privilege leave encashment holding it as not being a contingent liability? 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that Section 43B (f) for the Income Tax Act is struck down, inspite of the interim order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) 22889/2008?

2.

Learned Senior Counsel Sri A. Shankar, appearing for the respondent-Assessee submits that the issue is now covered by a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. M/s. Exide Industries Limited, which was decided on 24.04.2020, in favour of the Revenue.

3.

In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the Revenue succeeds and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench-A in I.T.A. No.117/Bang/2012 is hereby set aside, while further setting aside the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Hubli, in ITA No.352/HBL/2010-11.

Needless to observe that the allowance will be granted in the year of payment. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE sdu

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →