9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trary to the provisions of section 43B and 36(1) (va), 2(24)(x) - HELD THAT:- In view of the proviso which is sought to be relied upon in our considered opinion, the contention which is sought to be relied upon for previous year was not based even before the CIT (Appeal) or before the Tribunal. It is made clear that if the payment is made before filing of the return of the relevant year, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law:- Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding findings of the CIT(A) and allowing the amount of contribution to provident fund U/s. 43B when the amount calimed was for the preceding year and not deposited in time thus being contrary to the provisions of section 43B and 36(1) (va), 2(24)(x)? 4. Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal and the CIT (Appeal) have seriou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment which was made is not allowed to be deducted. Therefore, she contended that the view taken by the Tribunal and CIT (Appeal) is required to be reversed. 6. Counsel for the respondent has taken us to the order passed by CIT (Appeal) who while considering the case in paragraph 4.3 held as under:- Moreover, the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd, 321 ITR 508 has held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e/loss, whereas the assessee has added in computation an amount of Rs. 6,65,74,815/- only on the account. Hence the balance amount of Rs. 1,40,62,629/- is added to the income of the assessee due to the non payment/delayed payment by the company. 8. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon decision of this court reported in [2014] 363 ITR 70 (Raj.), wherein it has been pointed out that SLP agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
