UNION OF INDIA vs M/S EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. . — C.A. No. 3545/2009
Case under Section XVI. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010204252008
Filing Date
22-Jul-2008
Registration No
C.A. No. 3545/2009
Diary Number
20425/2008
Order Date
24-Apr-2020
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2020 INSC 350
Disposal Type
Appeals Allowed
Last updated 04-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.UNION OF INDIA
Adv. ANIL KATIYAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.M/S EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. .
Adv. HINGORANI & ASSOCIATES (Dead / Retired / Elevated)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Apr-2020
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Apr-2020
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Apr-2020
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
-
28-Jan-2020
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Jan-2020
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
-
23-Jan-2020
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Jan-2020
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
-
22-Jan-2020
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
-
03-Oct-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Oct-2019
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
-
01-Oct-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Jul-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Apr-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-May-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Feb-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Dec-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Jul-2008
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 3545/2009
Summary: Union of India v. Exide Industries Limited (C.A. No. 003545/2009) The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of clause (f) of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reversing the High Court's finding of unconstitutionality. Clause (f) requires that deductions for leave encashment payments be claimed only in the year of actual payment, rather than when the liability accrues under the mercantile accounting system. The Court rejected arguments that the clause lacked disclosed legislative intent, was inconsistent with Section 43B's original scope, or unconstitutionally defeated prior Supreme Court precedent, holding that legislatures may prospectively regulate existing deductions through valid fiscal legislation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts