TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old withdrawals before the AO addition confirmed. - Decided against assessee Addition u/s 43B - delay in payment of PPF - Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that the amendment to first proviso 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 Limited [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 I consider these two judgments, it becomes patent that both the employer’s and employees’ contribution are allowable as deduction if the amount of provident f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Loss Account on account of Vehicle running and maintenance, Depreciation on car and Telephone expenses. Considering 1/10th towards personal use, the AO made disallowance for a sum of ₹ 2,01,121/-, which was sustained in the first appeal. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is noticed that the assessee is an individual. There is no log book maintained by the assessee to show that vehicle was run and telephone was used only for business purposes. In these circumstances, element of personal user from these expenses cannot be ruled out. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that sustenance of disallowance at 10% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s return of income on account of late deposit of ESI and PF, etc. u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Upon the advent of the judgment by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del), the assessee claimed before the AO that since the amount of ESI and EPF etc., was deposited before the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act and, hence, the same should be allowed as deduction. The AO denied this claim by observing that such a claim was not entertainable otherwise than through a revised return. For this proposition, he relied on the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the view point of the AO. 9. Having heard the rival su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovident fund etc., though belatedly, but is paid before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is seen as an admitted position that the assessee deposited its and employees share in EPF etc. before the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. Respectfully following the aforenoted precedents, I order for the deletion of the addition. This ground is, therefore, allowed. Assessment Year 2012-12 12. The first issue is against the sustenance of disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- out of Vehicle running and maintenance and Telephone expenses. The assessee claimed deduction for a sum of ₹ 14,45,318/- under the head Vehicle running and maintenance. Considering the personal user by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
