9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- In this case is that whether the amount of employee s contribution deposited beyond the due date prescribed in the respective provident fund laws is allowable to the assessee as a reduction or not. In case of CIT Vs. Aimil Ltd 2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein, it has been held that the payment of even employees contribution before the due date of filing of return of income is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of employees contribution was disallowed by the ld AO of ₹ 4,03,239/- applying the provisions of section 36(i)(va) and section 43B of the Act. 2. The facts of the case shows that the assessee is a company it filed its original return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring income of ₹ 1,02,29,580/-. The assessee s case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is made or if paid before the due date of filing of the return in the assessment year two it belongs to. The assessee contested that in view of the decision of the CIT Vs. Vinay Cements 213 CTR 268 and CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306. Thus the contention of the assessee the about disallowance cannot be made. The ld AO rejected the contention of the assessee and stated that due date means the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue is decided on the merits of the case as per information available on record. 5. The ld DR vehemently supported the order of the ld AO and ld CIT(A). 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of the lower authorities. Brief contention in this case is that whether the amount of employee s contribution deposited beyond the due date prescribed in the respecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
