2011 (9) TMI 563

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Held That:- In view of CIT Vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. (2008 -TMI - 31356 - DELHI HIGH COURT) and Supreme Court in Vinay Cement amount (2007 -TMI - 102762 - Supreme Court of India) did not remain in the hands of the assessee during the relevant assessment year, for the same had been, in fact, deposited with the authority managing the funds. There was, therefore, no other income in the hands of the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... loyer s share and employees share, were not made within the time stipulated for making such payments, Assessing Officer held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction in respect of those contributions. On appeal, CIT (Appeal) held that since the amounts of contributions were paid, though not before the due dates, in view of deletion of proviso to Section 36(1)(va), which was held by the Hon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n due date, as specified by the Provident Fund and Employees Provident Fund authorities, would render deductions allowed unsustainable. The said question is covered by the judgments referred to above. 3. In addition to that, learned counsel, appearing in support of the appeal, contended that the amount of employees contributions to the said funds deducted by the employer were not deposited w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X