TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] followed. - 267 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2012 - ARUN MISHRA, NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I, JJ. JUDGMENT Narendra Kumar Jain-I J.- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated September 19, 2008, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of the Revenue has been dismissed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2000-01 on March 26, 2001, showing nil income. The order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act was passed on February 17, 2003. Later on, the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The only issue involved in the appeal is whether the disallowance of Rs.15 lakhs by the Assessing Officer in respect of the provision for leave salary was justified or not. We have examined the facts of the present case and also the ratio of the apex court in Bharat Earth Movers' case [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC). The appellate authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal considered the facts of the present case and came to a conclusion that the judgment of the apex court is fully applicable and, consequently, set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal is as under : "We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities as well as the decisions relied upon. We find that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC), we find that the hon'ble court in that case has been pleased to hold that the provision made by the assessee-company for meeting the liability incurred by it under the leave encashment scheme proportionate with the entitlement earned by the employees of the company, inclusive of the officers and the staff, subject to the ceiling on accumulation as applicable on the relevant date, was entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts of the accounting year during which the provision is made for the liability. The liability was not a contingent liability. Since the issue is fully covered by the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
