2013 (1) TMI 448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....007, for the assessment year 2003-04, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.5,24,929/- on account of late payment of PF made by the Assessing Officer u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the payments were made beyond the due date? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. ITAT is right in law in upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A), that the provision of Section 40(a)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to payments of Technical know-how, simply because only p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce, the present appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4. Regarding question (i), learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the issue raised herein finally stands settled by the Apex Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) and this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 663 of 2005 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s Rai Agro Industries Ltd. Sangrur), decided on 30.11.2010 wherein it has been held that Second Proviso to Section 43B of the Act omitted by Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1.4.2004 was clarificatory in nature and was to operate retrospectively. Once that is so, in the present case, the respondent-assessee was entitl....