<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (4) TMI 8 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221812</link>
    <description>Issue 1 addressed the disallowance of delayed payments for ESIC &amp;amp; PF out of employees&#039; contribution. The appellant&#039;s deduction was initially disallowed by the CIT(A) but was allowed by the Tribunal based on relevant case laws and sections, emphasizing that deductions are permissible if payments are made before the return filing date. Issue 2 involved the addition of professional fees not reflected in the receipts shown by the assessee. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for reconsideration, noting a discrepancy in the appellant&#039;s explanation regarding the source of the disputed sum. The appeal was partially allowed, granting the appellant an opportunity to clarify and reconcile the receipt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195164" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 8 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221812</link>
      <description>Issue 1 addressed the disallowance of delayed payments for ESIC &amp;amp; PF out of employees&#039; contribution. The appellant&#039;s deduction was initially disallowed by the CIT(A) but was allowed by the Tribunal based on relevant case laws and sections, emphasizing that deductions are permissible if payments are made before the return filing date. Issue 2 involved the addition of professional fees not reflected in the receipts shown by the assessee. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for reconsideration, noting a discrepancy in the appellant&#039;s explanation regarding the source of the disputed sum. The appeal was partially allowed, granting the appellant an opportunity to clarify and reconcile the receipt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>