New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (7) TMI 1063 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (7) TMI 1063 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Disallowance u/s 43B - delay in payment - retrospectivity - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that:- Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT ], whereby held that omission of second proviso to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

loyees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the above-said decisions, we find no reason to differ with the findings of the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue - Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.585 and 586 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015 - Dated:- 24-7-2015 - Mr. R.SUDHAKAR And Mrs. S.VIMALA, JJ. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Standing Counsel for Income Tax JUDGMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) The above Tax Case (Appeals) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. While completing the re-assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses claimed by way of Employee's contribution to PF and ESI holding that the assessee had not paid the employee's contribution of PF and ESI within the due dates specified under the respective Act. Aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the reopening as well as th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

teswara Electrical Industries P. Ltd. V. DCIT in ITA Nos.1344, 1345 and 1636/Mds/2014 dated 28.8.2014 held as follows: "5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the decisions relied on before us. It is not in dispute that all these payments of provident fund ₹ 16,20,571/- and ESI ₹ 17,51,490/- were made beyond the grace period/due date allowed under Provident Fund & ESI Acts but before due date for filing of income-tax return. This issue has been decided .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lar issue in the case of M/s.Venkateswara Electrical Industries P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amil Ltd. (321 ITR 508) held that even the employees contribution to provident fund is to be allowed as deduction if it is paid within due date for filing of return. While holding so, the Tribunal observed as under:- "6. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the sides and have perused the orders of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, reported as 321 ITR 508 has held that if the assessee had deposited employees contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no dis-allowance could be made in view of the provisions of section 43B as amended by the Finance Act, 2003. The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been followed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of JCIT Vs. M/s.S.M.Appar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version