https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186582 The HC held that the appellant was entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(va) for employees' provident fund contributions paid before filing the return under section 139(1), despite not being paid by the due date, referencing prior HC precedent. Regarding transaction costs on capital gains, the HC found that CIT(A) had rightly allowed the deduction based on evidence, but since new evidence was admitted without the revenue's opportunity for rebuttal, the matter was remanded to the AO. The AO was directed to reconsider the transaction cost deduction afresh, allowing for evidence to be examined in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jul 2025 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186582 The HC held that the appellant was entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(va) for employees' provident fund contributions paid before filing the return under section 139(1), despite not being paid by the due date, referencing prior HC precedent. Regarding transaction costs on capital gains, the HC found that CIT(A) had rightly allowed the deduction based on evidence, but since new evidence was admitted without the revenue's opportunity for rebuttal, the matter was remanded to the AO. The AO was directed to reconsider the transaction cost deduction afresh, allowing for evidence to be examined in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186582