9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmation of disallowance of employee's contribution amount to Rs..21,77,123/- towards EPF. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made remittance of Rs..21,77,123/- pertaining to employee's contribution to EPF beyond the due dates. Accordingly, the above amount was disallowed under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act and brought to tax. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decisions of other High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Unifac Management Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (WP No.5264 of 2018 and WMP No.6461 of 2018) dated 23.10.2018 (Mad), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that since the entire amount has been remitted before the due date for filing of return of income, the same should be allowed as deduction under section 43B of the Act. It was the submission that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), whereas, by following the Single Judge Bench against the writ petition in the case of Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in W.P. No. 5264 of 2018 & WMP No. 6461 of 2018 dated 23.10.2018, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. However, we find that vide order dated 09.01.2019, both the appeal filed in Writ Appeal No. 2854 of 2018 against the W.P No. 5264 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nipso Fabriks Ltd. [350 ITR 327] etc. 5.3 Moreover, in a recent decision in the case of PCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. Reported in [2017] 250 Taxman 16/84 taxmann.com 185(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "Amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed" 5.4 The ld. DR could not controvert the above findings of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as other case law referred hereinabove. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anted. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below. 6.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has produced the letter of Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Somanathaswamy Temple, wherein, it was stated that the assessee has paid monthly rent of Rs..81,906/- land lease rent in respect of Survey No. 67/4 for the financial 2012-13. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the income of the temple is used wholly for charitable purpose and not taxable in the hands of the temple in view of the provisions of section 10(23BBA) of the Act and filed copy of Circular No. 18/2017 dated 29.05.2017. However, no order of granting exemption under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
