9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, there is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT(A)in deleting addition . The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed . See CIT vs. M/s. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2007 (3) TMI 346 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO. 5028/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2017 - Shri S. V. Mehrotra, Accountant Member And Ms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on towards provident Fund or any other fund mentioned u/s 2(24)(x). 3. The assessee company filed its return of income on 01.10.2013 for A.Y. 2013-14 declaring loss of ₹ 35,41,809/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 7,91,59,691/- on account of late deposit of PF, ESIC and professional tax. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case is not covered by the Hon ble Delhi High Court Judgment in case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. But the Ld. DR failed to distinguish the facts as regards to the present assessee to the said case. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the case is squarely covered by the Hon ble Delhi High Court Judgment in case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. in fact in this matter also the assessee made payments of the PF and ESIC b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
