9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the amendment to the first proviso and omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective. The hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has allowed deduction in respect of employees share when the amount was paid before the due date. When we consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rturn the impugned order on this issue and order for the deletion of both additions. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07. Similarly the assessee claimed deduction for a sum of ₹ 2.47 lakhs in respect of employer's contribution to provident fund, which was disallowed under section 43B for the assessment year 2006-07, but paid on February 5, 2007. The Assessing Officer made disallowance for the abovesaid two sums, which came to be upheld in the first appeal. 4. After considering the rival submissions and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are not paid before the due date, then the amount cannot be allowed as deduction in the relevant year. However the deduction would be available in the year of payment. Since these two amounts were disallowed in the preceding year on the ground that these were not paid before due date of filing the return for the assessment year 2006-07, naturally the deduction would be available on payment of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
