9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rruled/stayed/set aside by higher judicial forum. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the AO was not justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of late deposit of PF/ESI/EPF, albeit before filing the return of income. Admittedly in the matter, the Revenue had not contended that the assessee has deposited the contribution after the filing of the return of income. In view of the above, respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble High Court cited hereinabove, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. - ITA No. 1840/Del/2020 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2022 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri N. K. Gupta , C. A. Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng wrongly made in intimation u/s 143(1), be deleted. 2. a) That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,07,637/- by the CPC in respect of employees share of ESI and Provident Fund deposited late but paid before the due date of filing the return. That the addition being contrary to provisions of law and unwarranted and unjustified be deleted. 3. b) That on a proper interpretation of provisions of sec 2 (24)(x) read with section 43B, it may be held that as the payments have been made before the due date of filing of return, the addition is bad in law and be deleted. 4. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that the sole grievance of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub clause (x) of Clause (24) of Section 2 applies. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue is no more res-integra. The issue has already been settled in favour of the assessee by various judicial pronouncements by the Tribunal. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no. 983/2018 dated 10.09.2018 has already taken a view in favour of the assessee by holding as under: In view of the judgement of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus AIMIL Limited, (20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
