Held, that there was no evidence that the sum had been paid before the due date for filing of the return of income. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in confirming the disallowance. For some years this issue had been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine whether or not the expenditure fell within the ambit of the provisions of section 43B of the Act and whether the actual payment of the sum in question had been made during the relevant year before allowing the claim of the assessee. There was no infirmity in the order. Further, held, that the confirmation of disallowance representing service tax under section 43B of the Act under the protest holding that the assessee could claim it as bad debt if it was not received from the client but that it was not allowable under section 43B of the Act was proper. (AY.2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15).