2010 (11) TMI 1017

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tax(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 17,21,934/- being employees' contribution made towards provident fund." 3. Briefly stated the facts are that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹ 17,21,934/- being employees contribution to PF. On appeal, in the impugned order the ld. C.I.T.(A) confirmed the said disallowance observing that assessee having made payment beyond the due date prescribed under the Provident Fund Act, the same is not allowable u/s. 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. C.I.T.(A), the assessee is in appeal. 4. At the time of hearing on behalf of the Assessee Shri P.M. Mehta, appeared and contended that following payments were made before the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tter in favour of the assessee and held that the employees' contribution made by the assessee were within the due date of filing of return, deduction is allowable to the assessee. (iii) Gujarat Containers Ltd., vs. ACIT in ITA No.2609/Ahd/08, dated 2nd March,2009 wherein the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal; has observed that when it has not been disputed that employees' contributions to PF having been paid before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act, it is held that employees' contribution towards PF (having been made within the due date of filing of return of income for the year under consideration), there is no ground for disallowing the same. (iv) CIT v/s. Alom Extrusion Ltd., (2009) 227 CTR(SC)-417: CIT v/s.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, the Ld. D.R. vehemently supported the view taken by the Ld. C.I.T.(A). He pointed out that section 43B has no application whatsoever, for employees' contribution because it is governed by provisions contained in section 36(1)(va) of the Act,1961. 9. In rejoinder, the counsel of the assessee relied on the Judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. AIMIL Ltd., (2010) 321 ITR- 508. He submitted that in this Judgement the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has specifically dealt with the employees contribution also in paragraph 19 on page 518 of the Report. Therefore, the A.O. be directed to allow the employees' contribution to the extent it is paid before the due date for filing the return of income. 10. After hearing both the ....