9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [ 2012 (11) TMI 592 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] granting deduction u/sec. 36(1)(va) of the employee's share of EPF etc. even if the deposit was made after the due date under the respective Acts, but before the time limit provided for filing the return u/sec. 139(1) of the Act. Such favourable view has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. [ 2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] . The fundamental question is no more res-integra that declaration of law by the Courts is always retrospective taking effect from the date of insertion of the provision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [ 2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that assessee had deposited the employees‟ share of EPF and ESI etc. belatedly. The Tribunal, in the referred impugned order, had observed that the employees‟ share was deposited prior to the due date of filing return u/sec. 139(1) and hence deduction was allowable u/sec. 36(1)(va) of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal had relied on various case laws as are appearing therein. 3. The Revenue has moved these Misc. Applications submitting that the view taken by the Tribunal, following various decisions, has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) holding that the deduction of the employees‟ share can be allowed u/sec.36(1)(va) only if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the court operated for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. Similar view had been taken by Full Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT v. Arun Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P H) (FB). In that case also, it was argued on behalf the assessee that the decision rendered by a Court subsequent to the passing of the order cannot be constitute an error apparent from the record so as to entitle an authority to proceed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
