9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if no revised statement of income was filed , the claim was allowable as the deduction has been claimed on the payment of TDS . We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) - Appeal of revenue dismissed. Allowability of delayed payment of PF - Amendment to section 43B - Held that:- Relying upon Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] and Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/s. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd [2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the amendments to the section brought about by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1st April 2004 were retrospective in nature and would operate from 1st April 1988 – thus, the Tribunal was fully justified in deleting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quest and observed that the deduction was not claimed in the original return and, therefore, assessee cannot claim any benefit. 4. Mr. Tejveer Singh submits that even though this view of the Assessing Officer was not accepted by the Commissioner, yet, the Tribunal did not express any opinion on the Commissioner's conclusions. Therefore, this question and as proposed at page 4 would arise and it is a substantial question of law. 5. We are unable to agree with Mr. Tejveer Singh and for more than one reason. The Commissioner has found that this is not a case of any revised return of income being filed. What was proposed to be revised and corrected is the figure or sum in which the deduction under section 40(a)(ia) was claimed. That w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goetze India Limited 284 ITR 323 was also referred by the Tribunal. The reasoning therefore, in paragraph 5 of the Tribunal's order is in consonance with the legal principles. A hypertechnical view being taken by the Assessing Officer that both the Commissioner and the Tribunal concurrently found that that the course adopted by the assessee was permissible. 6. We do not think that any substantial question of law arises from such a possible view and which is taken in the backdrop of the peculiar facts and circumstances. The first question is, therefore, not a substantial question of law. 7. Insofar as the second question is concerned, it is fairly conceded that the two judgments, one rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
