1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.103 of 1997. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur. ..vs.. M/s Navbharat Press Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.A.S.Jaiswal, Adv. for the appellant. Mr.L.S.Deweani, Adv. for the respondent. C ORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR AND A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 26th August, 2010. 1. This application was admitted on the following questions of law. 1. 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), deleting the addition of Rs.2,55,396/- and Rs.14,622/- made by the Assessing Officer being the amount of provident fund and ESI respectively paid after due date but during the grace period ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in 2 holding that the addition made by the Assessing Officer, being the amount of provident fund/ESI which relates to the period 1984 to 1988 and paid during the relevant accounting period was not justified in law ? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the addition made of Rs.1,83,005/- because LIC group gratuity scheme was not recognized by the CIT(V) Nagpur is not justified ? 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue as well as learned counsel for the assessee state that both question nos.1 and 2 are covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax ..vs.. Alom Extrusions Ltd., reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The learned counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the third question raised by the Revenue does not arise out of the original order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE. pzc 3