9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1861 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 43B or u/s 36(1)(va) - PF deposited beyond the time prescribed - Scope of section 43B of the Act - amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing of return - HELD THAT - As decided in Jaipur Vidyut Nigam Ltd. 2014 (5) TMI 222 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT it is an admitted fact that the entire amount was deposited by the respondent-assessee at least on or before the due date of filing of the returns under Section 139 of the I.T. Act and being a concurrent finding of fact by the respective authorities that if the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return under Section 139 and admittedly it was deposited on or before the due date then the amount cannot be disallowed under Section 43B of the I.T. Act or under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act - Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act regarding timely deposit of amounts. Applicability of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. Consideration of previous court decisions on similar matters. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Rajasthan addressed the issue of timely deposit of amounts under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act. The court referred to a previous decision in Income Tax Appeal No. 278/2011 where it was held that if the entire amount was deposited by the assessee on or before the due date of filing returns under Section 139, then no substantial question of law arises. This interpretation was supported by concurrent findings of fact by the authorities and previous judgments of the court in cases like Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaipur Vidyut Viaran Nigam Ltd. The court emphasized that if the amount was deposited on or before the due date, it cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The court also noted that the issue was no longer res-integra based on previous court decisions, and therefore, no substantial question of law arose from the impugned orders of the ITAT. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the aforementioned legal principles and precedents.
|
