9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for deduction under Section 10B of the Act? - HELD THAT:- Issue stands answered in the Assessee s own case in its favour by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. M. L. Outsourcing Services (P) Ltd. [ 2014 (9) TMI 396 - DELHI HIGH COURT] for AY 2007-08. The ITAT has, in fact, followed the said decision while deciding the question in favour of the Assessee. It is stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the Assessee. These include CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. [ 2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , CIT v. P.M. Electronics Ltd. [ 2008 (11) TMI 3 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. [ 2007 (3) TMI 346 - SC ORDER] and CIT v. Dharmendra Sharma [ 2007 (11) TMI 39 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Consequently, the Court declines to frame the question. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for deduction under Section 10B of the Act? b. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in law in holding that the employees contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and the Employees State Insurance Scheme (ESI) which is deemed as the employer's income u/s 2(24)(x) of the Act and which is subject to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act is also governed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecides the issue in favour of the Revenue. However, there are numerous decisions of this Court that have answered the very question in favour of the Assessee. These include CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del), CIT v. P.M. Electronics Ltd. (2008) X AD (Delhi) 677, CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 268 and CIT v. Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 320. Consequently, the Court declines to frame t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
