9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Shiva Goyal For the Respondent : Mr. Anant Kasliwal with Ms. Charu Pareek JUDGMENT 1. In these appeals, common question of law and facts are involved therefore, they are decided by the common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby the tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee confirming the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,89,66,398/-. All these amount of Rs. 9,19,93,302/- have been either not paid or paid after prescribed time. Therefore, this amount of Rs. 9,19,93,302/- should have been added while computing the income/loss, whereas the assessee has not added in computation. Hence the amount of Rs. 2,89,66,398/- is added to the income of the assessee due to the non payment/delayed payment by the company." 5. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he return. We therefore, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the Employers P.F. Contribution and Employees P.F. Contribution." 7. In other appeal, (68/2012) in Paragraph 5 which reads as under:- "As per audit report the total employees contribution to provident fund is Rs. 8,95,28,233/-. Out of this amount of Rs. 6,65,74,815/- have not been paid and amount of Rs. 1,40,62,629/- ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relied upon for previous year was not based even before the CIT (Appeal) or before the Tribunal. 11. It is made clear that if the payment is made before filing of the return of the relevant year, the assessee will be entitled for benefit under Section 43-B. Question of detailed payment under PF Act and other act is subject matter of decision of Supreme Court. 12. The appeals are accordingly di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
