9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.06.2018 of the ld. CIT (A), Jaipur for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- "1. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 5,96,932/- being employees' Contribution towards PF and Rs. 6492/- being employees' contribution towards ESI on the ground that the same were deposited late. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdictional High Court in case of in case of PCIT vs. M/s Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited in DB ITA No. 10,11 & 12/2018 dated 13.03.2018 which was misunderstood by the ld. CIT(A). We note that there was typographical mistake in the said decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court whereas the Hon'ble High Court has followed the earlier decision in case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd order dt.26.05.2016 referred to (supra) and has held that the privilege fees being a revenue expenditure, is required to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. This court in the aforesaid case has also allowed the claim of the assessee, in so far as payment of PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
