https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763336 The P&H HC ruled in favor of the assessee on three issues. First, contributions to an unrecognized provident fund were allowed as the trust was duly recognized by CIT, following precedent from Gujarat HC. Second, regarding expenditure under Section 36(1)(iv) versus Section 37(1), the court held that its earlier binding precedent in Punjab Financial Corporation case prevailed over a contrary Delhi HC judgment, allowing the deduction. Third, liability for electricity duty discharged through equity share allotment by the government constituted actual payment under Section 43B, making the deduction allowable. The revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Dec 2024 15:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763336 The P&H HC ruled in favor of the assessee on three issues. First, contributions to an unrecognized provident fund were allowed as the trust was duly recognized by CIT, following precedent from Gujarat HC. Second, regarding expenditure under Section 36(1)(iv) versus Section 37(1), the court held that its earlier binding precedent in Punjab Financial Corporation case prevailed over a contrary Delhi HC judgment, allowing the deduction. Third, liability for electricity duty discharged through equity share allotment by the government constituted actual payment under Section 43B, making the deduction allowable. The revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763336