2016 (8) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7, the revenue has preferred the Tax Appeals No. 2486 of 2010 and 2577 of 2009 respectively. 2. This Court while admitting these matters framed the following substantial question of law for consideration: TAX APPEAL NO. 2486 OF 2010 (A)Whether the Appellate Tribunal has rightly erred on facts in deleting the disallowance made under the provisions of section 36(1)(v)(a) of the Act, with regard to delayed employees contribution to P.F. ? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has rightly erred on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallwance made on account of technical knowhow fees amounting to Rs. 11,50,875/- ? TAX APPEAL NO. 2577 OF 2009 "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5. Mr. Manish Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - assessee has submitted that as such the questions of law raised in the present Tax Appeals are now not res integra. He submitted that so far as question (A) of both the appeals is concerned, the same has already been concluded in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amoli Organics (P) Ltd. reported in (2014) 221 Taxman 116 (Guj) wherein this Court has held as under. "[7] At the outset it is required to be noted that as such, the assessee shall be entitled to the benefits of the amendment under section 43B amended by the Financial Act, 2003. Even with respect to the amount of provident fund dep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tted by the learned Tribunal in granting deduction to the assessee with respect to the amount deposited with the provident fund department within the extended period / grace period. Under the circumstances, no other issues are required to be considered. No question of law muchless any substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal." 5.1 Mr. Shah further submitted that so far as question (B) of Tax Appeal No. 2486 of 2010 is concerned, the same is also covered by a decision of this Court in the case of assessee itself being Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sayaji Industries Ltd. reported in (2013) 81 DTR 0418 wherein this Court has held as under: "23. To our mind, therefore, the provisions of section 35AB of the Act can appl....