9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;s contribution which were deducted from their income and was held in trust by assessee-employer as per section 2(24)(x), thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. The non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was not part of assessee-employer's income, thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. Also see Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. [ 2023 (1) TMI 137 - SC OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed under section 139(1) of the IT. Act, 1961 for filing the return of income. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance made by the Assessing Officer as such adjustment is beyond the scope of section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. At the time of hearing before us, the counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the issue is now covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. 143 taxman.com 178 (SC) and therefore the issue may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h were deducted from their income and was not part of assessee-employer's income, thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. Again the Supreme Court in the case of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 608 (SC) , dismissed the SLP of the Department against order of High Court that where assessee-company failed to pay employees contribution towards EPF and ESI within due date prescribed in respective Acts, deduction under section 36(1)(va) was not allowable. Recently in the case of Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda [2023] 146 taxmann.com 420 (Bangalore - Trib.) the assessee during, financial year 2018-19 (assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
