|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f8159/f8159b10b1fefe23474e72280ab411fc80a2464a" alt="" |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f8159/f8159b10b1fefe23474e72280ab411fc80a2464a" alt="" |
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/af1b1/af1b1683209c463d322089f084021370007a2631" alt="" |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f8159/f8159b10b1fefe23474e72280ab411fc80a2464a" alt="" |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Penalty: Concealment of income - Loss-assessed - Law... | Pre-commencement income: Letting know-how... » |
Supreme court on 43 B holding the amendment retrospective |
|
November, 17th 2007 |
CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd (Supreme Court)
Contribution made towards provident fund etc; after the close of the accounting period but before the due date for filing of the return of income are allowable as a deduction u/s 43B(b) of the Act even for assessment years prior to the deletion of the second proviso by the Finance Act 2003 wef 1.4.2004.
Note: The judgement of the High Court in CIT vs. George Williamson 284 ITR 619 (Gau) was approved. The judgement of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. M/s Godavari Sahakari (Bombay High Court) and that of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Synergy Financial Exchange 288 ITR 366 stand impliedly overruled while that of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. M/s Sabari Enterprises (Karnataka High Court) stands impliedly approved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/af1b1/af1b1683209c463d322089f084021370007a2631" alt="" |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f8159/f8159b10b1fefe23474e72280ab411fc80a2464a" alt="" |
Copyright 2025 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved. Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/af1b1/af1b1683209c463d322089f084021370007a2631" alt="" |
|
|
|