JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Two issues are raised before us. One is of claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the other is of claiming deduction of employees contribution to PF and ESI which was made beyond the prescribed period of limitation provided under the Act. Following two questions may be noted:- "i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made on account of contribution made to State Renewal Fund ignoring the fact that contribution towards fund is not connected with the business but it is diversion of Income and not allowable u/s. 37 (1) of the IT Act. ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 425000/- made for depositing the employees' contribution to PF & ESI beyond the prescribed time limit provided in the respective Acts." 2. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, similar issue was dealt with by a Division Bench in a judgment dated 13.03.2018 in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 10/2018 and connected appeals involving this very issue. Following observations may be noted:- "4. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the same is now covered by the decision of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd.[2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj) wherein it has been held as under:- "Insofar as the expenditure incurred on State Renewal Fund is concerned, said expenditure also goes to show that the renewal fund was set up by the State Government and was created with the object of providing a safety net for the workers likely to be effected by restricting in the State Public Enterprise and that a finding of fact has been recorded that the contribution made to the State Renewal fund is solely for the purposes of the welfare and benefit of the employees. In our view, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of business and expenditure of this nature being for business expediency is certainly allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In our view, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of business and expenditure of this nature being for business expediency is certainly allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In our view any normal expenditure for the welfare and benefit of employees is allowable expenditure under Section 37(1), the Tribunal has come to a finding of fact that it was a legal obligation of the respondent-assessee towards contribution of the said amount to the State Renewal Fund and there being a legal obligation as well in our view the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion." 5. In view of above, question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department." 3. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, following observations may be noted:- ""6. The effect of deletion of second proviso to s. 43B of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. : (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and it was observed at p. 314 of the report as under: "....... s. 43B (main section), which stood inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, w.e.f. 1st April, 1984, expressly commences with a non obstante clause, the underlying object being to disallow deductions claimed merely by making a book entry based on the mercantile system of accounting. At the same time, s. 43B (main section) made it mandatory for the Department to grant deduction in computing the income under s. 28 in the year in which tax, duty, cess, etc., is actually paid. However, Parliament took cognizance of the fact that the accounting year of a company did not always tally with the due dates under the Provident Fund Act, Municipal Corporation Act (octroi) and other tax laws. Therefore, by way of the first proviso, an incentive/relaxation was sought to be given in respect of tax, duty, cess or fee by explicitly stating that if such tax, duty, cess or fee is paid before the date of filing of the return under the Income-tax Act (due date), the assessee(s) then would be entitled to deduction. However, this relaxation/incentive was restricted only to tax, duty, cess and fee. It did not apply to contributions to labour welfare funds. However, this relaxation/incentive was restricted only to tax, duty, cess and fee. It did not apply to contributions to labour welfare funds. The reason appears to be that the employer(s) should not sit on the collected contributions and deprive the workmen of the rightful benefits under social welfare legislations by delaying payment of contributions to the welfare funds. However, as stated above, the second proviso resulted in implementation problems, which have been mentioned hereinabove, and which resulted in the enactment of the Finance Act, 2003, deleting the second proviso and bringing about uniformity in the first proviso by equating tax, duty, cess, and fee with contributions to welfare funds." 7. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. : (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 268 while dismissing the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the Guwahati High Court observed as under:- "In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of s. 43B. In the circumstances the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in s. 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return." 8. Following the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cement (supra), the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. AIMIL Ltd. and Ors.: (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) held at p. 518 as under:- "We may only add that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the ESI Act. Therefore, the Act permits the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject to the aforesaid consequences. In so far as the Income-tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed, as per the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinay Cement." 4. In the result this appeal is dismissed.