✦ Bombay High Court

Court against the revenue in C.I.T v. Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation

Judgment

Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dewani, learned counsel for the respondent. At the instance of the revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer being the amount of Provident Fund paid after “Due Date” during the grace period ?” The Assessment Year involved herein is A.Y. 1992-93 & 1993-94. The counsel on both sides agree that the aforesaid question is answered by this 2 Court against the revenue in C.I.T. vs. Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation (I.T.A. No.14 of 2000 decided on 25.1.2000). In this view of the matter, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Income Tax Reference No. 4 of 1997). ← Search more judgments