2019 (9) TMI 445 - HC - Income Tax

Question of fact or law - delayed Employees share of provident fund to the concerned employees respective PF account under Section 36(1)(v)(a) - HELD THAT - No merit in this appeal. Only questions of fact are sought to be raised. Commissioner (Appeals) had advanced detailed factual reasons to hold that the employees share of provident fund was credited by the assessee to the concerned employees respective PF account under Section 36(1)(v)(a) within the due date. Therefore, we are not minded to interfere with it on appeal. Similar is the case with the findings with regard to amortization of specific items of expenditure.

Summary

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal (ITAT 245 of 2017) as only questions of fact were raised. The Commissioner (Appeals) provided detailed factual reasons supporting the decision, including crediting employees' share of provident fund within the due date. The Court declined to interfere with the decision and also dismissed the connected stay application (GA 2118 of 2017).