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>Leave Encashment Deductions Require Actual Payment, Court Affirms ITAT Decision, Aligns with SC Precedents.</h1> <h3>M/s. Carborundum Universal Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Chennai</h3> M/s. Carborundum Universal Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Chennai - TMI Issues:1. Eligibility to claim provision for a loss under Section 28(i) read with Section 29.2. Applicability of explanation to Sec.37(1) of the IT Act.3. Eligibility to claim provision for leave encashment based on actuarial valuation.4. Application of the decision in Exide Industries Ltd and another Vs. Union of India & Others 292 ITR 470.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the eligibility to claim a provision for a loss incurred during business under Section 28(i) read with Section 29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others Vs. Exide Industries Ltd and another highlighted the importance of actual payment in such cases to prevent employers from avoiding payment obligations. The court dismissed the appeal based on this precedent, emphasizing that deductions for leave encashment are allowed only upon actual payment.2. The Tribunal's decision on the applicability of the explanation to Sec.37(1) of the IT Act was also challenged. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, affirming that disallowance of provision for leave encashment under Section 43B(f) is permissible only upon actual payment. The High Court of Kerala also supported this stance, emphasizing that deductions for leave encashment should only be claimed upon actual payment.3. Another issue raised was the eligibility to claim a provision for leave encashment determined through actuarial valuation. The appellant contended that the provision was accurately calculated and certain, arising in the previous year. However, the court's reliance on previous judgments and the requirement for actual payment led to the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing that deductions for leave encashment must align with actual payments.4. Lastly, the appellant questioned the Tribunal's decision regarding the application of the judgment in Exide Industries Ltd and another Vs. Union of India & Others 292 ITR 470. However, the court's consistent stance on the necessity of actual payment for claiming deductions for leave encashment led to the dismissal of the appeal, with the Substantial Questions of Law answered against the assessee based on established legal precedents.
TaxTMI 