9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration :- Whether, the Tribunal misdirected itself in disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of staff provident fund dues on the ground that they had been paid after the due date referred to in the relevant statute but before the date for filing a return under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the counsel for the parties have agreed to dispense with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in respect of, staff provident fund dues which have been paid after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute, but before the date of filing of return of income. 3. However, in order to dispose of the appeal the following facts require to be noted :- 3.1 The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30-3-2008 disallowed the deduction, in respect of, staff provident fund dues, amounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equently, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed. 3.3 The Department being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment reversed the order of CIT(A) by relying upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 3661. In the said judgment the Madras High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d due paid after due date prescribed under the relevant statute, but before the date of filing of return under the Act, i.e., Income-tax Act, 1961. In our view, the aforesaid issue is squarely covered by our judgment in the case of CIT v. P.M. Electronics Ltd. [2009] 177 Taxman 1 (Delhi) as corrected by our order dated 5-12-2008 passed in CM 17067/2008 in P.M. Electronics case (supra). In the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
