9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. See PRO INTERACTIVE SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [ 2018 (9) TMI 2009 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition to the tune of Rs. 221,728/- on account of disallowance of deduction of employees contribution to provident fund u/s 36(1)(va). Further, the assessment intimation was framed u/s 143(1)(a) and no addition can be made on account of debatable issue and deduction u/s 36(1)(va) is a well established debatable issue. (iv) On facts and in law the learned CIT (Appeal) was wholly unjustified in summarily rejecting and ignoring the fact that assessment order passed by Assessing officer are bad in law as much as in disallowing Rs. 221,728/- on account of disallowance of deduction of employees contribution to provident fund u/s 36(1)(va). (v) On facts and in law the learned CIT (Appeal) was wholly unjustified in summarily rejecting in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. ADD CIT 03.08.2021 and similar judgement by ITAT Hyderabad and Bombay In case of Value momentum software services P. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01.04.2021 as per amendment brought from 01.04.2021. (viii) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeal) has failed to spell out reasons for not abiding by the judicial precedents especially the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard. (ix) On facts and in law learned CIT Appeal has wholly misinterpreted and misunderstood the amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 from 01.04.2021. Explanation inserted to section 43B and 36(va) has prospective effect and same will be applicable only from 01.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and for aforesaid proposition, he relied on the decision in the case of Azamgarh Steel & Power vs. CPC in ITA No.1626/Del/2020 dated 31.05.2021 and CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265 (Delhi) and various other decisions. 6. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities and also placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No.1312/Del/2020 order dated 26.08.2021. He also submitted that the amendment brought out by Finance Act 2021 would be applicable to the present case as by the amendment it has been clarified that provisions of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. In such a situation, we are of the view that the amendment brought out by Finance Act 2021 does not apply to the assessment year under consideration. 9. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the aforesaid order cited hereinabove has been overruled/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 decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
