https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220629 The HC held that the assessee was entitled to deductions for both employer and employee contributions to ESI and Provident Fund, as these were deposited before filing the return under section 139(1). The court followed the SC ruling in Alom Extrusions Limited, which clarified that the omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003, operates retrospectively. Consequently, delay in payment of employees' contribution to PF and disallowance under section 43B read with section 36(1)(iv) was not applicable, allowing the deductions in favor of the assessee. en-us Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2025 12:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220629 The HC held that the assessee was entitled to deductions for both employer and employee contributions to ESI and Provident Fund, as these were deposited before filing the return under section 139(1). The court followed the SC ruling in Alom Extrusions Limited, which clarified that the omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003, operates retrospectively. Consequently, delay in payment of employees' contribution to PF and disallowance under section 43B read with section 36(1)(iv) was not applicable, allowing the deductions in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220629