9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance of Rs. 2,01,121/- out of Vehicle running and maintenance, Depreciation on car and Telephone expenses on account of personal use. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed return declaring income of Rs. 13,49,900/- from his proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s Ess Bee International engaged in the business of manufacture and export of readymade garments. The AO observed that a total of Rs. 20,11,209/- was debited to the Profit & 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 Rs. 2,01,121/-, which was sustained in the first appeal. 5. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thdrawals before the AO. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances prevailing in this case, I am of the considered opinion that the sustenance of addition at this level does not require any interference. This ground is not allowed. 8. The last ground is against not allowing fresh deduction of Rs. 8,01,463/- which was not claimed in the return, but, taken up before the AO. The assessee voluntarily disallowed a sum of Rs. 8,01,463/- in his 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oviso 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 [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi)] 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 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. Respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
