9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act was not allowable. The non-obstante clause contained in Section 43B of the Act would not apply in the case of employees contribution deducted from the salary of employees and held in trust by assessee-employer. Therefore, such assessee/employer would not be absolve from the liability to deposit employees contribution on or before the due date specified in the respective statutes as a pre-condition for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va). Also in the case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd [ 2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] the law laid down in the case of Checkmate Services Private Ltd. (supra) shall apply retrospectively. The consequence of such retrospective application would be that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... timation, dated 16/11/2019, issued under Section 143(1) of the Act on account deposits of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Corporation after lapse of time prescribed in the applicable statute was deleted since the aforesaid deposit, though delayed, were made before the due date of filing return specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, in the case of Checkmate Services Private Ltd. v. CIT1:[2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC)[12-10-2022], the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that where an assessee failed to deposit Employees' Contribution towards Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance within due date prescribed in respective statutes, deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act was not all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 254 of the Act in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.: 2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) and the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Kailashnath Malhotra Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range 56, Mumbai [2009] 34 SOT 541 (Mum.) (TM), and Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hughes Services (FE) Pte. Ltd.: [2009] [2005] 93 ITD 77 (Delhi)(TM). The view taken by the Tribunal vide order dated, 28/07/2022, being contrary to view taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Ltd. (supra) constitutes a mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, we allow the rectification applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
