TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (7) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the employees who were the members of this sports club and, therefore, he held that the expenditure cannot be said to be for non-trading purposes. As the expenditure is for the welfare of the employees, the CIT(A), in our opinion, was right in allowing the claim of the assessee. No interference is called for. His order on this issue is upheld. 3. The next issue is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 12,840 made under the head "Biswakarma Puja'. It was disallowed by the AO as being not business expenditure. The expenditure was debited under the head "donation & charity and Biswakarma Puja" and the disallowance of Rs. 12,840 was part of the disallowance of Rs. 21,487. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs. 12,840 by observing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3B speaks of "certain deductions to be only on actual payment". From the heading, the intention of the legislature in introducing 43B is very much clear and apparent. Moreover, Circular No. 372, dt. 8th Dec, 1983 also clarified the legislative intention and directs that contribution to P.F. should be allowed only in computing the income of that previous year to which such sum is actually paid by the assessee. The Hon'ble Members of Madras Tribunal also supports the view in Madras Radiators & Pressings Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1996) 56 ITD 668 (Mad)(sic). When other kinds of payments as specified in cls. (a), (c) and (d) of s. 43B are allowed in the year of payment or within the specified time under s. 139(1), there cannot be different legislative ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction for a sum of Rs. 96,812 paid during the year in respect of contribution to Family Pension Fund is also to be allowed. The AO is directed accordingly. Now, coming to employees contribution separately also, I find enough force in the contention of the authorised representative that the disallowance is not sustainable because the appellant had never claimed any allowance/deduction for the employees contribution. As such, employees contribution cannot be disallowed. Moreover, the claim is also fully covered under s. 37. Even, on the facts of the case the terms and conditions of s. 36(1)(va) is complied in the sense that the relevant fund account was credited in the accounts on or before the due dates and there is the only requirement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal in the case of Him Containers Ltd. in ITA No. 574 Gau/1991 for asst. yr. 1989-90, order dt. 27th May, 1998, and the decision of Calcutta Bench "E" of the Tribunal in the case of National Homeo Laboratory in ITA Nos. 2443 & 2444 Cal/1996, order dt. 26th Feb., 1999. Similarly, we agree with the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,167 as it was the payment of premium for insurance under ESI and the same was paid during the previous year under consideration. As regards deletion of Rs. 3,41,911 which represents the employees contribution, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the observation of the CIT(A) that the same cannot be disallowed. Clause (b) of s. 43B covers any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of ....