Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. Planman Hr Pvt. Ltd

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 170/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar & Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Standing Counsels for Revenue. versus PLANMAN HR PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ved Jain with Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R% 12.02.2018 The question of law sought to be urged by the Revenue is with respect to the applicability of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”). The AO had disallowed amounts claimed, by the assessee holding them to be subject to deduction under Section 36(1)(va). The amounts were the employees’ share of the contributions made for the employees’welfare in the relevant schemes in the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, 1952 and the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The ITAT went by the previous decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. AIMIL Ltd. & Ors. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.). ITA No.170/2018 Page 1 of 2 That judgment had relied upon the Supreme Court ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 1 (SC). Since the issue is covered by rulings of this Court and the ITAT merely applied the ratio in those decisions, no question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J FEBRUARY 12, 2018 kks A. K. CHAWLA, J ITA No.170/2018