End Of Picture Text -----<Br> v. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd

$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 983/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. Versus PRO INTERACTIVE SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. .. Respondent Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Mr. P.C. Yadav and Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR O R D E R % 10.09.2018 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 belated payment of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Appeal is dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 MR CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.