2011 (4) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Advocate and M/s. Darshan Poddar, Piyush Poddar and Vikas Pandey, Advocates.   By Court Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the Respondent.   2. In this case, the Tribunal has held that the money, which was taken by the Respondent, was for the purposes of paying interest and on that count, the Tribunal has reversed the findings of the Appellate Authority and the Asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse because the amount was collected with a clear intention that the same would be utilised for the Scheme. Thus, there cannot be any other intention of the deposit being accepted by the employer-MECON. Since the intention was for a Scheme and such deposits under Section 2 (24) (x) of the Income Tax Act are the depo....