COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALOM EXTRUCTIONS LIMITED

va) of sub-section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date.” On reading the above provisions, it becomes clear that the assessee(s)-employer(s) would be entitled to deduction only if the contribution stands credited on or before

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

va) of sub-section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 15 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

va) by Finance Act 20 of 2002 with effect from the aforesaid date, any sum received under an agreement for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business was taxed, for the first time, under this provision and the provision not being retrospective would not apply to the facts of the present case. 11. Shri Arijit Prasad, learned