<?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>2021 (9) TMI 1350 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300842</link>
    <description>Employees&#039; contribution to provident fund and ESI, when paid before the due date for furnishing the return, remained deductible, and the adjustment made during processing under section 143(1) was beyond the permissible scope because it involved a debatable issue requiring verification. The Tribunal applied its earlier view that such a disallowance cannot be made at the intimation stage without scrutiny, and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 Feb 2022 20:35:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=671401" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 1350 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300842</link>
      <description>Employees&#039; contribution to provident fund and ESI, when paid before the due date for furnishing the return, remained deductible, and the adjustment made during processing under section 143(1) was beyond the permissible scope because it involved a debatable issue requiring verification. The Tribunal applied its earlier view that such a disallowance cannot be made at the intimation stage without scrutiny, and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>