TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss of manpower consultancy. On perusal of the Tax Audit Report field along with the return of income the AO observed that the assessee has made employees contribution payment in respect of PF and ESIC beyond the due date as under: P.F. Month Amount (Rs.) Due date for payment Date of payment April, 2006 64,254 20.05.2006 24.06.2006 May, 2006 72,307 20.06.2006 26.06.2006 June, 2006 79,524 20.07.2006 27.07.2006 August, 2006 1,08,162 20.09.2006 01.10.2006 Septmber,2006 1,38,489 20.10.2006 31.10.2006 October, 2006 1,41,079 20.11.2006 13.12.2006 6,03,816/- ESIC Month Amount (Rs.) Due date for payment Dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utions etc shall be "income" and S. 36 (1) (va) which provides that if such sums are contributed to the employees account in the relevant fund on or before the due date specified in the PF etc legislation, the assessee shall be entitled to a deduction. The Court also noticed that the second Proviso to s. 43B (b) provided that any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident fund etc. shall be allowed as a deduction only if paid on or before the due date specified in 36(1)(va). After the omission of the second Proviso w.e.f 1.4.2004, the deduction is allowable under the first Proviso if the payment is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income. The Court also took note of the fact th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the ESI Act. Therefore, the Act permits the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject to the aforesaid consequences. Insofar as the Income-tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed, as per the principle laid down in Vinay Cement. In view of the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that the deduction claimed by the Assessee has to be allowed. We direct accordingly. Ground No.1 is accordingly allowed. 5. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant, order of the AC and facts of the case are that the AO has confronted that the appellant has received'Rs.45,794/- on 28/11/2006 from Trammell Crow Meghraj Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. which was not reflected on the receipts. Before the AC the appellant has submitted that he has not received any fees from this party. Before me the appellant submitted that it was received and amount reflected :s Rs.40,200/- i.e. Rs.45,794/- less service tax of Rs.5,594/. but no evidence to reconcile this figure was submitted. Since the onus is on the assessee to prove with evidence before the AC for claiming any deduction and receipt in the P & L A/c. In this case, the appellant has failed to prove that the receipt of Rs.45,794 was reflected , therefor....