Court affirms Tribunal decision on PF contributions, depreciation disallowance.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on all three issues: late deposit of employees' contribution to PF, late deposit of employer's contribution to EPF and FPF, and disallowance of depreciation on a let-out building. The Court emphasized the retrospective application of relevant provisions and factual verifications by lower authorities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Late deposit of employees' contribution to PF.
2. Late deposit of employer's contribution to EPF and FPF.
3. Disallowance of depreciation on let-out building.

Issue 1: Late deposit of employees' contribution to PF
The revenue appealed against the Tribunal's decision confirming the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer for late deposit of employees' contribution to Provident Fund. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, prompting the revenue to file an instant appeal. During the hearing, the revenue conceded that previous judgments were against them. The Division Bench referred to the legislative history of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that the Finance Act, 2003, omitted the second proviso to Section 43B, which was held to be retrospective by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to allow the claim of the assessee was upheld.

Issue 2: Late deposit of employer's contribution to EPF and FPF
Similar to the first issue, the revenue contested the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer for late deposit of employer's contribution to EPF and FPF. The Division Bench, relying on previous judgments and the retrospective nature of the Finance Act, 2003, upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the claim of the assessee in this regard.

Issue 3: Disallowance of depreciation on let-out building
The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on the entire building as let out, leading to the income being assessed under "income from house property." The CIT(A) partially upheld the disallowance, considering only 1/10th of the building as let out for administrative work to associated concerns. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that only 10% of the area was let out, and depreciation was disallowed accordingly. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision, and the appeal was dismissed based on the factual verification and submissions made by the assessee.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on all three issues, emphasizing the retrospective application of the relevant provisions and the factual verifications conducted by the lower authorities.

---