Section 43B which permits a deduction for payments made upto the due date for filing the ROI applies only to the employer’s contribution to the provident fund etc. It does not apply to the employees’ contribution.
Change in method of accounting was bona fide and with the compliance of the Accounting Standard – AS 9 – Revenue Recognition issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and provisions of S.5 of the Act.
In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ITAT. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeal. Hence, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
If the assessee was entitled to make payment within the grace period and if within that grace period, its employer contributions have been deposited by the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee has not deposited the amount with the department within the due date as prescribed under the Provident Fund Act
Whenever any decision has been relied upon and/or cited by the assessee and/or any party, the authority/tribunal is bound to consider and/or deal with the same and opine whether in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the same will be applicable or not.
Capital gain arising of long term capital asset, if invested in specified asset, the assessee is not to be charged capital gains and exemption provided under Section 54EC of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee only on account of the fact that deeming fiction is created under Section 50 of the Act.
The fact is not in dispute that in the case on hand, the return has been filed electronically for the A.Y 2010-11 wherein, the petitioner has made a claim for deduction of TDS as per Form 26AS under section 203AA of the Act.
Liberty India (supra) was a case of non-operational subsidy inasmuch as the subsidy, provided in Liberty India (supra), did not relate to production; whereas the subsidies, in the present set of cases, are operational in nature inasmuch as the subsidies are related to the production
AO denied deduction u/s 80-IB(10) only on the ground that assessee engaged in business of construction had adopted ‘Project completion method’ instead of ‘Percentage completion method’ as prescribed under AS-7 (Revised). The Hon’ble High Court observed that there was no allegation to the effect that on account of “Project completion method” adopted by the assessee, its profit for any particular year was distorted. Further, the assessee had followed the same system consistently for a long period of time. It was thus held that assessee must be allowed deduction u/s 80-IB(10).
Though the questions are multiple, issue is single, namely, the deduction of Rs.61,08,500/- claimed by the assessee towards expenditure being part of development charges. The assessee had paid such sum to Surat Municipal Corporation towards water connection charges.
