Court No. - 3 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 52 of 2004 Appellant :- U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax Kanpur Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Garg, Ashish Bansal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.It, Shubham Agarwal Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Heard Sri Ashish Bansal, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Subham Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent. This appeal by assessee under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 raises following eight substantial questions of law :- "(1). Whether facts and circumstances of case and reducing of Section 10(25A) as came to be interpreted by Apex Court in case of Gujrat Industrial Development Corporation & others Vs. CIT, reported in 227 ITR Page 414 ITAT should not have specifically held that assessee is exemption from taxation? (2). Whether ITAT was legally correct in upholding taxability of sums aggregating Rs.39,15,829/- in hands of assessee under head "Profit in Land Transactions', without considering true nature of 'receipt' itself and obligations /liabilities of overriding nature, as attached to same? (3). Whether addition of Rs.39,15,829/- represented by part (5%) of premium collected by assessee and forfeiture of earnest money /premium etc., as upheld by ITAT is not vitiated in law by non-consideration of principle governing accrual of income and other material /information placed on record? (4). Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was legally correct in not adjudicating upon ground relating to assessee's claim for deduction of Rs.1,29,88,829/- under head "Annual and Special Repairs?" (5). Whether Tribunal was legally correct in holding that payment of Rs.1,38,491/- as had been actually made to Life Insurance Corporation of India under group gratuity scheme could not be allowed as deduction as such payment was nil by provisions of Section 40A(7) of Act? (6). Whether on true and correct interpretation of provisions of Section 37 (4), Tribunal was legally correct in upholding disallowance of expenses that had been claimed under head "Guest House Expenses?" (7). Whether disallowance of depreciation of Rs.2,00,000/-, as sustained by ITAT is legally correct? (8). Whether on true and correct interpretation of provisions of Section 43B and other related provisions of Income Tax Act, Tribunal was legally correct in holding that unpaid balances under head EPF and EFP were liable to be treated as assessee's income in year under appeal?" question no.1 has been answered by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.231 of 2006 decided on 05.07.2016 in favour of Department. question no.2 and 3 have been decided in favour of assessee in Income Tax Appeal Nos.12 of 2015 and 13 of 2015 decided on 11.07.2016. question no.4 has been decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 12.04.2017 in Income Tax Appeal No.135 of 2003 and it was held that it was incumbent upon Tribunal to have decided about deductions claimed by assessee under head "Annual and Special Repairs" independently and as such, matter requires to be reconsidered by Tribunal and accordingly, said question was remanded to Tribunal. Question no.5 has also been decided by decision dated 11.07.2016 passed in Income Tax Appeal Nos.12 of 2015 and 13 of 2015 in favour of assessee. Question no.6 is covered by decision of Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Limited Vs. CIT 278 ITR 546 and stands concluded in favour of Department. Question no.7 is not actually question of law and was not pressed by assessee in earlier appeal. In view of above, there is no need for adjudication of aforesaid question and matter stands concluded by findings of fact returned by Tribunal. Question no.8 has been dealt with by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2016 passed in Income Tax Appeal no.87 of 2006 and it has been held that if contribution of employee and employer both is deposited on or before due date for furnishing Returns under Section 139(1) of Act, employer is entitle for deductions. In view of above decision, irrespective of fact whether matter involves contribution of employer or employee, if same has been deposited prior to due date for furnishing Returns of income, assessee is entitle to its deduction. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, substantial questions no.2, 3, 5 and 8 are answered in favour of assessee and question no.1 and 6 in favour of Department. Question no.4 stands remanded to ITAT whereas question no.7 is left unanswered as it is question of fact and not law. appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 19.8.2017 Nadim U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur