9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirming the disallowance of ₹ 17,21,934/- being employees contribution made towards provident fund. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹ 17,21,934/- being employees contribution to PF. On appeal, in the impugned order the ld. C.I.T.(A) confirmed the said disallowance observing that assessee having made payment beyond the due date prescribed under the Provident Fund Act, the same is not allowable u/s. 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. C.I.T.(A), the assessee is in appeal. 4. At the time of hearing on behalf of the Assessee Shri P.M. Mehta, appeared and contended that following payments were made before the due date of filing the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposits to employees provident fund were got cleared much prior to due date under Section 139(1) was entitled to deduction of such sum. (ii) Sai Consulting Entineers pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 10th August,2007 in ITA No.2262/Ahd/07; wherein the Hon ble Ahmedabad Tribunal has decided the matter in favour of the assessee and held that the employees contribution made by the assessee were within the due date of filing of return, deduction is allowable to the assessee. (iii) Gujarat Containers Ltd., vs. ACIT in ITA No.2609/Ahd/08, dated 2nd March,2009 wherein the Hon ble Ahmedabad Tribunal; has observed that when it has not been disputed that employees contributions to PF having been paid before the due date of filing of return under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel of the assessee submitted that assessee s claim of employees contribution towards PF to the extent of ₹ 11,50,052/- is allowable in view of the amendment by Finance Act,2003, which amendment has been held as curative and applicable respectively w.e.f. 1-4-1988. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. vehemently supported the view taken by the Ld. C.I.T.(A). He pointed out that section 43B has no application whatsoever, for employees contribution because it is governed by provisions contained in section 36(1)(va) of the Act,1961. 9. In rejoinder, the counsel of the assessee relied on the Judgement of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. AIMIL Ltd., (2010) 321 ITR- 508. He submitted that in this Judgement the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
