TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of late deposit of PF/ESI/EPF, albeit before filing the return of income. Admittedly in all the above-stated matters, the Revenue had not contended that the assessee has deposited the contribution after the filing of the return of income - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 318/Del/2022, 367/Del/2022, 1729/Del/2020 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2022 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee By : Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv Revenue By : Shri Rajender Jha, Sr. D. R. ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals are filed by the above mentioned assesses feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by appellate authority for A.Y. 2018-19 mentioned hereinabove. 2. Since the issue in all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. Similar grounds with different amounts have been raised in other appeals but however the sum and substance and the issue involved in all the appeals are identical. 4. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that the sole grievance of the assessee is confirming the additions on account of delay in deposit of employee s contribution towards provident fund and ESI fund. 5. Before us, Learned AR submitted that additions has been made in the intimation issued by CPC, Bangalore u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the contribution received towards PF/ESIC by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious judicial pronouncements by the Tribunal. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no. 983/2018 dated 10.09.2018 has already taken a view in favour of the assessee by holding as under: In view of the judgement of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus AIMIL Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was/is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
