TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has allowed deduction in respect of employees' share when the amount was paid before the due date. When we consider these two judgments, it becomes clear that both the employer's and employees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dditions. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.7547/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2013 - Shri R.S.Syal and Shri Sanjay Garg, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri I.P.Rathi For the Respondent : Shri Rajarshi Dwivedy ORDER R. S. Syal (Accountant Member).- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on August 16, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Similarly the assessee claimed deduction for a sum of ₹ 2.47 lakhs in respect of employer's contribution to provident fund, which was disallowed under section 43B for the assessment year 2006-07, but paid on February 5, 2007. The Assessing Officer made disallowance for the abovesaid two sums, which came to be upheld in the first appeal. 4. After considering the rival submissions and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are not paid before the due date, then the amount cannot be allowed as deduction in the relevant year. However the deduction would be available in the year of payment. Since these two amounts were disallowed in the preceding year on the ground that these were not paid before due date of filing the return for the assessment year 2006-07, naturally the deduction would be available on payment of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
