TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules provision for leave encashment not a contingent liability, assessee's appeal allowed.</h1> <h3>The Highland Produce Co. Ltd. Versus The Dy. CIT., Cir. 1, Alappuzha</h3> The Highland Produce Co. Ltd. Versus The Dy. CIT., Cir. 1, Alappuzha - TMI Issues: Disallowance of provision for leave encashment.Analysis:The appeal pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 2,74,000 towards provision for leave encashment for the assessment year 2005-06. The representative for the assessee argued that the provision for leave encashment should not be considered a contingent liability, citing the judgment in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-tax. It was contended that once the income was computed under section 115JB and certified by the auditor, the assessing officer cannot go beyond the certified accounts. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that the provision for leave encashment is a contingent liability and should be added to the profit computed under section 115JB. The contention was that the liability to pay leave encashment arises only when employees exercise their options.The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and referred to the judgment in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. The Tribunal observed that the Apex Court had found that the provision for leave encashment is not a contingent liability. The Court held that the liability incurred by the company under the leave encashment scheme, proportionate with entitlement earned by employees, is entitled to deduction from gross receipts for the accounting year in which the provision is made. Therefore, the provision for leave encashment cannot be considered a contingent liability. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the addition made by the assessing officer. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 2,74,000 was removed.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the provision for leave encashment is not a contingent liability based on the judgment of the Apex Court. The decision emphasized that the provision made for leave encashment should be allowed as claimed, and there was no justification for the addition made by the assessing officer.
TaxTMI 