TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lastics P. Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (Bom) 80 : (1991) 188 ITR 11 (Bom). Respectfully following the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court, we confirm the view taken by the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation without reducing the subsidy from the cost of the assets. The Revenue fails on this ground. 3. The ground No.3 in the appeal reads as follows: "The CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow weighted deduction under s. 35B without considering the fact that the same is not allowable in respect of any expenditure incurred after 1st March, 1983." 4. The allowability of weighted deduction under s. 35B has been challenged in respect of all types of expenditure incurred aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve salary is not permissible deduction as it is a contingent liability." 9. The issues involved in these grounds of appeal has been discussed by the learned CIT(A) in para 3 of his impugned order in the following manner: "The next contention is regarding the disallowance of provision for leave salary. The deduction has been allowed in the earlier year by the Hon'ble Tribunal. The addition is deleted." 10. The Tribunal order to which reference has been made by the learned CIT(A) has not been produced before us. It was submitted by the learned Departmental representative that the liability on account of leave encasement by employee is not an ascertained one, but is a contingent one and, therefore, any provision for such liability cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or leave period remains a contingent liability which the employee may or may not be called upon to discharge. Consequently, a sum set apart by an employer in any year for meeting the contingency of some of his workers going on leave in the next year cannot be regarded as a permissible expenditure under the IT Act. In view of this direct ruling of the jurisdictional High Courts on the subject and the decisions of two other High Courts on the same subject, we would like to agree with the learned Departmental Representative that such liability can only be regarded as a contingent liability and no deduction, whether or not determined on actuarial basis, can be allowed as an expenditure on actual basis. These grounds of appeal are therefore enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
