Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (9) TMI 2040

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the department. 2. Though served none appeared for the respondent. 3. This Court while admitting the matters framed the following substantial questions of law:- In DBITA No. 68/2015 "1. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 47,17,143/- provided for contractual obligation in the return which was not allowable being contingent/unascertainable liability?" 2. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,39,38290/- made on account of employees contribution to provident fund specifically when the amount claimed was not deposited in prescribed time thus being contrary to the provisions of section 43B and 36(1)(va), ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontrary to the provisions of section 43B and 36(1)(va), 2(24) (x)." In DBITA No.179/2016 "Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,76,34,111/- made on account of employees contribution to provident fund specifically when the amount claimed was not deposited in prescribed time thus being contrary to the provisions of section 43B and 36(1)(va), 2(24)(x)." In DBITA No. 105/2015 "Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,45,57,068/- made on account of employees contribution to provident fund specifically when the amount claimed was not deposited in prescribed time thus being contrary to the provisions of section 43B and 36(1)(va), 2(24)(x)." 4. Counsel ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hod of accounting adopted by the assessee. It would also depend upon the historical trend and upon the number of articles produced. A provision is a liability which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation.  A provision is recognized when : (a) an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of a past event (b) it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation and (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. If these conditions are not met, no provision can be recognized. This principle is that if the historical trend indicated that a large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and the facts show that defects existed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6. Counsel for the respondent has taken us to the order passed by CIT (Appeal) who while considering the case in paragraph 4.3 held as under:- "Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd, 321 ITR 508 has held that no disallowance can be made in respect of Employers P.F. Contribution and Employees P.F. Contribution in case such contributions are paid before due date of filing. It is not in dispute before us that the contributions have not been paid before due date of filing of the return. We therefore, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the Employers P.F. Contribution and Employees P.F. Contribution." 7. In other appeal, (68/2012) in Paragraph 5 which reads as under:- "As per audit repor....