https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402344 Prior period expenditure required fresh verification because the record did not show proper examination of crystallisation or supporting evidence; the Tribunal remitted the claim to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after allowing the assessee to place material on record. Employees' contribution to provident fund, though deposited after the statutory due date under the welfare law, was held allowable as a deduction where payment was made before the due date for filing the return, applying the interaction of sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and 43B(b) and binding jurisdictional precedent. The appeal therefore succeeded on the provident fund issue and was partly allowed overall. en-us Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Dec 2020 11:32:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402344 Prior period expenditure required fresh verification because the record did not show proper examination of crystallisation or supporting evidence; the Tribunal remitted the claim to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after allowing the assessee to place material on record. Employees' contribution to provident fund, though deposited after the statutory due date under the welfare law, was held allowable as a deduction where payment was made before the due date for filing the return, applying the interaction of sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and 43B(b) and binding jurisdictional precedent. The appeal therefore succeeded on the provident fund issue and was partly allowed overall. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402344