Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.28 seconds)Section 36 in THE FINANCE ACT, 2021 [Entire Act]
The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
The Finance Act, 2018
Section 2 in THE FINANCE ACT, 2021 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in THE FINANCE ACT, 2021 [Entire Act]
Dy.Cit., Circle-4,, Ahmedabad vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. , ... on 28 April, 2017
In the present case the AO have disallowed the payment made
towards these funds by relying on CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and by
taking note of the decision of Hon'bleGujrat High Court in the case of M/s Gujrat State
Road Transport (supra) and ITAT (Mumbai) decision in the case of M/s LKP
Securities(supra) that the employees contribution to PF/ESI can be allowed only if the same
has been deposited within the due date prescribed under the respective Act (PF and ESI Act)
and not before the due date of filing of return of income. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has taken
note of the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021, by virtue of it has been clarified that
Section 43B does not apply to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and it is deemed to never have
been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions
of Section 2(24)(x) applies.
Commr.Of Income Tax-I vs M/S Vatika Township Pvt.Ltd. on 29 October, 2014
In the light of the
aforesaid decision and relying on the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s Snowtex Investment Ltd. (supra) and also taking
note of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court on this issue
before us in Shri Vijayshree Ltd. Ltd.(supra), M/s Philips Carbon Black Ltd.(supra), M/s
Coal India Ltd.(supra), M/s Akzo Nobel India Ltd. (supra), we set aside the impugned order
of Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of deduction in respect of employees
contribution shares towards ESI, PF, by the assessee before the due date of filing of return
u/s 139(1) of the Act. Therefore the appeal of assessee succeeds and so, it is allowed in favour
of assessee.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Aimil Limited on 23 December, 2009
So till AY 2021-22, the Jurisdictional
High Court's view in favor of assessee will hold good and is binding on us. As discussed the
decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd. (supra) which was in favor of
revenue has not considered the decision of the Co-ordinate Division Bench decision in M/s
Aimil Ltd.(supra) which is in favour of assessee.