9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chandigarh disallowing deduction u/s 80C in respect of contribution to the GPF by the employees and creating an additional demand of Rs. 14,98,908/- u/s 201(1) is bad in law more so in view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 18644-CAT of 2006 dated 23.04.2014 and needs to be set aside. 3. That the order of the Assessing Officer as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chandigarh charging interest u/s 201(1 A) amounting to Rs. 5,17,183/- is bad in law more so in view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 18644-CAT of 2006 dated 23.04.2014 and needs to be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of appel late proceedings, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed written submissions, relevant portion of which is reproduced below: "In this connection, it is submitted that the perusal of deduction u/s 80C of the Income Tax on account of contribution towards the provident fund allowed by the appellant while deducting tax at source u/s 192 of the Income Tax Act from the salary of its employees on the ground that the provident fund to which contributions were made was not recognized at the relevant point of time. The recognition has been granted in favour of the fund to the appellant w.e.f. 30.03.2012. The case under consideration pertains to the assessment year 2009-10. It may also be submitted here that the appellant has filed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loyees. In view of this discussion, it is held that the T?R' has rightly been treated as 'assessee in default'. The demand created u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) is accordingly confirmed. Grounds of appeal taken by the appellant are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed." 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset pointed out that the ld. CIT(Appeals), Chandigarh in the case of the same assessee for subsequent assessment year 2010-11 ( financial year 2009-10) and assessment year 2011-12 (financial year 2010-11) on the same set of facts allowed the claim of the assessee by following the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 23.04.2014 in Civil Writ Petition N o. 18644/2006 in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
