Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ernst And Young Pvt Ltd on 2 September, 2008
Author: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
1
ITA No. 471 of 2008
G.A.No.2019 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction(Income Tax)
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-III Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
M/S ERNST AND YOUNG PVT LTD Defendant/Respondent
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE The Hon'ble JUSTICE PARTHA SAKHA DATTA Date : 2nd September, 2008.
The Court : After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied with the grounds stated in the petition. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. G.A.No. 2019 of 2008 is thus disposed of.
We now take up the application for admission of the appeal. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, the appeal is admitted and the following substantial questions of law is referred for adjudication :
" (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.2,58,26,000/- and erred in accepting the claim of the assessee that the amount only represented reimbursement and there was no element of income which is pre-requisite for application of Section 195?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.61,73,338/- and erred in not considering that the assessee failed 2 to submit any evidence that the debts actually became bad in respect of the RBI guidelines of due diligence in this regard?
(c) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of leave encashment due to the employees in view of the provision of section 43(B)(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relying on the decision of Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India by the Calcutta High Court striking down sectioin 43(B)(f) and erred in not considering that the department has filed special Leave Petition on the issue before the Apex Court "
Let paper book be prepared by the appellant and be served upon the respondent within eight weeks after vacation.
Let the appeal appear ten weeks after vacation. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertakings.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.) (PARTHA SAKHA DATTA, J.) km