9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same would continue to be governed by Sec. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. We find that the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Central, Pune Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) clearly observed that both employees and employers contribution would be covered under the amendment to Sec. 43B of the Act - Disallowance to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No(s). 3813/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2018 - SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM For The Appellant : Shri. Virag Shah, A.R. For The Respondent : Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R. ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), submitted before the A.O, that as the respective payments were made before the due date applicable in its case for furnishing the return of income under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 139 for the year under consideration in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred, thus, as per the post amended Sec. 43B of the Act, no disallowance of the aforesaid amount was called for in its hands. However, the A.O was not persuaded to subscribe to the aforesaid claim of the assessee. The A.O held a conviction that as the judgment of the Hon ble Apex court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) was rendered in context of Sec. 43B of the Act, thus the same would have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Due date of Payment (Inclusive of 5 Days Grace/Period) Actual Date of Payment Auditors date of Payment Auditors Remarks Apr-12 48,590.00 47,255.00 4,358.00 1,00,173.00 20-May-12 28-Aug-12 Delay May-12 55,916.00 54,326.00 5,012.00 1,15,254.00 20-Jun-12 28-Aug-12 Delay Jun-12 54,026.00 52,450.00 4,840.00 1,11,31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Feb-13 60,730.00 58,996.00 5,444.00 1,25,170.00 20-Mar-13 16-Mar-13 Non-Delay Mar-13 65,077.00 63,309.00 5,840.00 1,34,226.00 20-Apr-13 21-May-13 Delay Total 7,09,592.00 6,89,863.00 63,642.00 14,63,097.00 It was the contention of the Ld. A.R that the lower authorities had erred in observing that the provisions of Sec. 43B were applicable onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that our indulgence in the present appeal has been sought by the assessee, for adjudicating, as to whether in the backdrop of the post-amended Sec. 43B of the Act, the lower authorities were justified in disallowing the amount of the employees contribution to provident fund that was deposited by the assessee beyond the stipulated period contemplated under the Provident Fund act, but before the due date of filing of its return of income under Sec. 139(1) of the Act. We find that it is an admitted fact, that though the assessee had deposited the employees contribution to provident fund beyond the time period allowed under the PF act, however, the said amounts were paid before the due date of filing of the return of income by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
