Union of India v. Exide Industries

425 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2020#695 most cited

What is Union of India v. Exide Industries authority for?

The provision for leave encashment is allowable as a deduction only on an actual payment basis under Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 43B(f).

146

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Exide Industries · Exide Industries SC · 425 ITR 1 · Section 43B(f) · Section 43B · leave encashment deduction · payment basis · approved gratuity fund · validity of Section 43B(f) · employee benefit expenses · actual payment · deduction allowability

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Union of India v. Exide Industries

Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle 1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 103/CTK/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2011-12 Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Vs. Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 5Th Floor, Bayan Bhawan, Floor, Bayan Bhawan, 1(2),Bhubaneswar. 1(2),Bhubaneswar. J.N.Road, J.N.Road, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit, 5Th Floor, Bayan Bhawan, Floor, Bayan Bhawan, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. J.N.Road, J.N.Road, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat, Cas B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat, Cas Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12 /01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01 /01/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: S/Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat, CAsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 263Section 43B

…provisions for leave encashment u/s.43B(f) of the Act without allowing actual expenditure. 4. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Exide Industries Ltd. 425 ITR 1 (SC), wherein, it has been held that the leave encashment is liable to be allowed on actual payment. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd (supra), the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee the benef…

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.283/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Hp India Sales Private Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner No.24, Salarpuria Arena Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Hosur Main Road Adugodi Bengaluru – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Arun Kumar, Cit(Tp)-2-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 28.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 13 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal Dated 22.06.2022. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing, Did Not Raise Any Specific Plea With Regard To Grounds 1 To 5, 10, 12 & 13 (Also Sub-Grounds), Hence, The Same Are Dismissed. The Surviving Grounds, Namely, Grounds 6 To 9, 11 & Its Sub-Grounds, Read As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Arun Kumar, CIT(TP)-2-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92B

…assessee did not claim any consequential relief for the claim on payment basis. It is submitted that the issue is now settled against the assessee in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI v. Exide Industries Ltd. reported in (2020) 425 ITR 1 (SC). 13. It is claimed by the assessee before the Tribunal that it did not make any claim for payment of leave encashment for Rs.1,46,50,125 owing to the claim made for the assessment year 2012-2013. It is submitted that the details of actual payment of Rs.1,46,50,125 are forming part of the disclosure in the audit report for the subject assessme…