Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anz Information Technology P. Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Direct Taxation

Court

Karnataka High Court

Decided On

Case Number

I.T.A. No. 29 of 2009

Judge

Reported in

[2009]318ITR123(KAR); [2009]318ITR123(Karn)

Acts

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(24), 36(1), 43B and 260A; Provident Fund Act; Employees' State Insurance Act

Appellant

Commissioner of Income-tax

Respondent

Anz Information Technology P. Ltd.

Appellant Advocate

K.V. Aravind, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

M.V. Seshachala, Adv.

Disposition

Appeal by Revenue dismissed

Excerpt:


- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 147(1)(b)(i): [n.k.patil,j] third party risk - extent of liability in respect of gratuitous passengers traveling in lorry held, insurers liability does not extend to such passengers. hence award passed by tribunal directing insurance company to pay compensation to claimants, with liberty to recover amount paid by it from owner of offending vehicle, cannot be sustained, and is liable to be set aside. it is open to claimants to recover amount from owner of offending vehicle. .....state insurance contribution, i.e., beyond the stipulated period provided under the provident fund act, is an allowable deduction in view of section 43b of the act?2. whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the deposit made by the employer of the employee's contribution belatedly and contribution towards employees' state insurance contribution, i.e., beyond the stipulated period under the income-tax act and under the provident fund act and the employees' state insurance act cannot be treated as the income of the assessee under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) in view of section 43b of the act?2. sri aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that while answering similar questions, a division bench of this court has already taken a view against the revenue in i.t.a. nos. 1087 and 1088 of 2006 and the judgment rendered in this case of the cit v. sabari enterprises : [2008] 298 itr 141 (karn) virtually covers the present case also.3. however, learned counsel would submit that the revenue having not accepted the correctness of the decision has sought for grant of leave before the supreme court and as of now special.....

Judgment:


D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.

1. The appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Questions of law raised in this appeal are as under:

1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the contribution made towards provident fund by the employer belatedly and contribution towards Employees' State Insurance contribution, i.e., beyond the stipulated period provided under the Provident Fund Act, is an allowable deduction in view of Section 43B of the Act?

2. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the deposit made by the employer of the employee's contribution belatedly and contribution towards Employees' State Insurance contribution, i.e., beyond the stipulated period under the Income-tax Act and under the Provident Fund Act and the Employees' State Insurance Act cannot be treated as the income of the assessee under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) in view of Section 43B of the Act?

2. Sri Aravind, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that while answering similar questions, a Division Bench of this Court has already taken a view against the Revenue in I.T.A. Nos. 1087 and 1088 of 2006 and the judgment rendered in this case of the CIT v. Sabari Enterprises : [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karn) virtually covers the present case also.

3. However, learned Counsel would submit that the Revenue having not accepted the correctness of the decision has sought for grant of leave before the Supreme Court and as of now special leave petition is pending before the Supreme Court and, therefore, submits this matter can be admitted and kept pending awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court.

4. While the special leave petition is not yet examined and leave itself is not given, we do not find it proper to admit and keep this appeal pending in this Court on the premise of a special leave petition being pending examination by the Supreme Court and would rather dismiss the appeal at the admission stage itself following the judgment of the earlier Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karn).

5. Appeal dismissed.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //