9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rs. 30,93,567/- under section 36(1)(va) in respect of employees contribution to PF of Rs. 26,36,808/-, ESIC of Rs. 3,94,983/- and Labor Welfare Fund of Rs. 61,776/-, despite the fact that the said contribution of the impugned amount of Rs. 30,93,567/- has been paid before the due date of filing of the return of income. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee filed its return of income on 11/10/2018 under section 139(1) declaring total income of Rs. 99,40,627/-. The assessee e-filed its tax audit report on 11/10/2018 in which it was noted that certain payments amounting to Rs. 30,93,567/- with respect to contributions received from employees for various funds were deposited after due dates mentioned in the relevant Acts, but which wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are Fund of Rs. 61,776/- after the due date specified under the relevant Acts; nevertheless paid before the due date for filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. We have also considered the plethora of judgments relied upon by both the sides. The disallowance of the impugned amount under section 36(1)(va) was on the basis of the report under clause 20(b) in the tax audit report. The issue pertaining to the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) was decided in favour of the assessee in the following cases:- 1. Principal CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 84 taxmann.com 185; 2. CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 185 Taxman 416(SC) 3. CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 4. CIT vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT VS. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that section 43B applied to both employers as well as employees contribution. Furthermore, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal ('H' Bench) in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore in ITA No. 1785/Mum/2021 dated April 27, 2022, wherein it has been held as under:- "........ In our considered view, it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer CPC to take a view contrary to the view taken by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court - more so, when his attention was specifically invited to the binding judicial precedents in this regard. For this reason also, the inputs in question in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
