9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act and also not drawn any distinction between the employee s and employer s share qua PF ESI contributions, hence, the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction if the payments are found made before due date of filing the return, do not require any interference as the impugned order does not suffers from any perversity, impropriety and/or illegality, consequently issue raised by the Revenue Department is not tenable - Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 9646/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2022 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Ms.SangeetaYada ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees State Insurance Scheme (ESI) is an allowable deduction u/s. 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 r.w.s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961 if paid before the due date of filing of return. 2. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forgo any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 5. The ld. DR by raising arguments against the impugned order submitted that since the Assessee failed to deposit the employees contribution towards PF/ESI within the period stipulated under the relevant statutory Acts, therefore the ld. Commissioner was not justified in deleting the impugned disallowance. Ld. AR, on the other hand, vehemently supported the impugned order. 6. Heard the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on account of employees contributions qua Provident Fund and ESI, deposited before the due date of filing of return. 7.3 In the judgment delivered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., (ITA.No.983/2018 order dated 10.09.2018), the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of CIT Versus AIMIL Ltd., (supra), has been followed by holding as under :- In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Aimil Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
