TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ARAT HIGH COURT) wherein it is categorically held that in the case of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF, the same will not be deductable in computing income under section 28 of the Act. The law so laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. The mere fact that an appeal against the said decision is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not dilute b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 20,34,916/-, for the late payment of Employees Contribution to PF/ESI. 3. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee; however, we find that issue in question is squarely covered against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such, it is not binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The authority, for this proposition, is contained in a series of judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court, including, inter alia, in the cases of State of Manipur vs. ThingujamBrojenMeetai, (1996) 9 SCC 29; Om Prakash Gargi v. State of Punjab, (1996) 11 SCC 399 and Sun Export Corpn v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1997 SC 2658. We, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
