AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 477
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 2006-07. Mr Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that in the facts of the present case, substantial questions of law arise in this Appeal and they read as under :- "(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was right in allowing the claim of the Assessee on account of delayed payments of P.F. Of employees' contribution amounting to Rs. 1,82,77,138/- by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306) ? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 10,00,300/- on bond registration char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the disallowance with reference to the payment of employees' contribution to the P.F. amounting to Rs. 1,82,77,138/- and expenses of Rs. 10,00,300/- towards bond registration charges are in dispute. Being aggrieved by the said Assessment Order, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT (Appeals) who by his order dated 17th February 2010 partly allowed the Assessee's Appeal. With reference to the employees' contribution to P.F., the CIT (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction in respect of payments made within the grace period and disallow the payments made after the grace period. As regards bond registration charges, the CIT (Appeals) observed that this very issue was covered by the order in the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counting with regard to tax, duty and contribution to welfare funds stood discontinued and under section 43B of the Act, it became mandatory for the Assessees to account for the aforestated items not on a mercantile basis but on a cash basis. This situation continued between 1st April 1984 and 1st April 1988 when Parliament again amended section 43B and inserted the first proviso thereto which inter alia laid down that in the context of any sum payable by the Assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, if paid by the Assessee even after the closing of the accounting year but before the date of filing of the return of income, the Assessee would be entitled to the deduction under section 43B on actual payment basis and such deduction would be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e representations to the Ministry of Finance who, after taking cognizance of the difficulties, inserted an amendment vide Finance Act, 2003 which came into force with effect from 1st April 2004. In other words, with effect from 1st April 2004, two changes were made in section 43B viz. deletion of the second proviso to section 43B and further amendment in the first proviso which reads as under:- "Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under subsection (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een disallowed to the Assessee. Admittedly, the Assessment Year in question is 2006-07. The second proviso to section 43B quoted above was deleted with effect from 1st April 2004 and simultaneously the first proviso was also amended bringing about a uniformity in deductions claimed towards tax, duty, cess and fee on the one hand and contribution to the employees' provident fund, superannuation fund and other welfare funds on the other. These deductions being claimed in the return of income filed for the Assessment Year 2006-07, the amendments to Section 43B which came into force with effect from 1st April 2004 would have clearly applied to the Assessee's case. In this view of the matter also, we find that the ITAT was fully justifie....