Income Tax

Deduction claimed for a pay/wage revision is an ascertained liability not contingent

The deduction claimed for a  pay/wage revision is an ascertained liability and cannot be termed as contingent because the wage and probable revision or rates of revision would be within the fair estimation of the employer.

Case Law Details:

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

I.T.A .No.-1733/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11)

DCIT vs. Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. 

Date of Judgment/Order: 17/03/2016

Ground of Appeal:

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of provision for pay revision by failing to appreciate that the proposal for pay revision is pending for approval from Government and as such does not qualify as ascertained liability. “

Brief Facts:

The assessee was a public sector undertaking (PSU), engaged in promotion and trading of handicrafts and allied items. For the assessment year 2010-11 the Assessee had claimed an expense of Rs. 198.58 lakhs on account of provision for pay revision, pending approval of the same from the Government. The revision of pay scale was due as per DPE guidelines. Following accrual system of accounting, the assessee estimated the liability and provided the same in the books of account. However, he Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) by making a disallowance of ‘provision made towards liability’ on account of pay revision of employees holding that the assessee’s liability was contingent in nature and accordingly do not qualify for deduction.

The Assessee contested the matter before the CIT(A) who held that in the past such provision was allowed towards liability on account of pay revision of employees and the same is not being a contingent liability.

Held: ITAT allowed the deduction and dismissed the appeal.

Excerpt from ITAT Judgment:

We have perused all the records and heard both the counsels. In case of CIT Vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (2012) 26 Taxmann. Com 252 (Delhi HC) it was held that with the expiry of one wage settlement or agreement, invariably, there is a time lag when another fresh wage revision agreement is negotiated and entered. The deduction claimed for that period cannot be termed as contingent because the wage and probable revision or rates of revision would be within the fair estimation of the employer. The issue is fully covered in assessee’s favour and the CIT (A) has rightly deleted the said addition in respect of provision for pay revision.

download full judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • bankruptcy

Court can not sit over comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers decided by CoC

Court can not sit over comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers or to substitute its own view for the decision…

21 minutes ago
  • Income Tax

When quantum appeal restored, penalty can’t be levied for non-payment of demand

When quantum appeal stands restored to the AO, penalty can not be levied u/s 221(1) of the Income Tax Act…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Even in case of bogus purchases, entire purchases cannot be disallowed – ITAT

Even if, the assessee is engaged in the bogus purchases, the entire purchases cannot be disallowed - ITAT In a…

2 days ago
  • SEBI

Order to stock broker by WhatsApp are legally verifiable record – SEBI

Order to stock broker through WhatsApp may be considered as legally verifiable record - SEBI SEBI in an informal guidance…

2 days ago
  • ICAI

ICAI Guidance Note on Audit of Banks, 2025 Edition

ICAI Guidance Note on Audit of Banks 2026 Edition ICAI has issued 2025 edition of the Guidance Note on Audit…

2 days ago
  • Empanelment

NHIDCL is hiring CA/CMA and others as Young Professionals. Last date – 14.04.2026

NHIDCL is hiring CA/CMA and others as Young Professionals – Last date to apply is 14.04.2026 The National Highways and…

3 days ago