Karnataka High Court
The Commr Of Income Tax vs Bpl Mobile Cellular Ltd., on 28 June, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.V.Nagarathna
BETWEEN:
1.
" i*3angalore~25.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALORE
DATED THIS THE 28?" DAY or JUNE, 20e':or;:lf"j«aee:.a
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUS'lfICE«Nfi.Ii. E:
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUsTroEl,B.V'}
1.1;/a~No.2v'"ofi'2oes
The Commissioner of.Inco'me Tax, E "
Central Circle." ~
C.R. Building. _ _ _
Queen's
Bangalore. f:_ E' '
The; DeputyTCornlniss1o'ner of Inco1ne--'I'ax
Central'~Circle¥2l;'~.,e W
C.R. Bu1ld1ng,_ ' '
Queen's Road, "
Bangalore; V'
' 'V E" .. Appellants
'~ l\/I.V. Seshachala. Advocates}
" gm, Mo'o3ljeV..CeIlular Ltd.,
{fonneri_*;,BPL Cellular Ltd}
BPL. Telecom Centre.
No.5<£V,_ Rmhmond Road.
.. Respondent
:9('k'1'\'* i\) This ITA is filed under Section 260--A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and to allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in ITA No. 1076 / Bang/ 2002 da.ted":2_6=~7-- 2005 and confirm the orders passed by thpe..__Appe}iiate.& Commissioner confirming the order passed by'1.the""Deput3{ T. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circ1e--2, Bangalore. S' This ITA coming on for Hearirilglrl'th_is«._d£ty',lt:l\U{.,vVI3ati1. J ., delivered the following:
«_U_l__D_(.3.,_1Y1_F_3_i_\I.T This appeal by the Re}/"enuev. thelll impugned order dated 2t3lhl " in l.T.A.Nvo;--1VOif€¢fl/ Income Tax Appellate to consider the following substantial-. aoluesltions 9' oflaw.
I 1] ""V'Ihether the Tribunal was correct _ inplholdfiing that the contributions made by it "wtpthe'n.a'sseosee to PF and ESI are allowable ._ .deducti.o'n even though it is made beyond the V stipurllated period as contemplated under the mandatory provisions of Section 36[1][va) read with Section 2[24}[x) and Section 43B of ._ the Act as the same was paid by the ._ "yassessee on or efore the due date for " furnishing the eturn of income as per Section l39(1] W?
2] Whether the Tribunal was correct._ in holding that the amendment to Section 4313 of the Act which had been introduced'jbyf"*«.V Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 18* April 2004 si'Io'u.lj:i.. 5 _.__ be read retrospectively and should .188 A understood as if Section 4333 would . V applicable to the assesseegin' the light 't_he~[} A" A judgment of the Apex Court in:-249$ iTR_6'?7' A
2. We have heard learned counsel Revenue as weil as the learned cgounselglappearing for the respondent -- Assessfse. ;lf_or;;_quite*som_etime.
3. .;_the« course fol submission, learned thlevparties submitted that.
the s1ib}uectg rnatter.'liinvolved in this case is directly coveredp 'Judgi'ne'nt of the Division Bench of this i it cp'u{4t L<iated_'3'"d Jiiiglv 2007 in I.T.A.Nos. 1087 & 1088 of Eiommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sabari Enterprvisesfil Therefore, they submitted that, following the judgment, the instant appeal may also be 'dispiosed of.
/