TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (va). Also in the case of M/s. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ 2014 (3) TMI 386 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] supports the case of the assessee. There should not be any dispute that the decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court is binding on all authorities below it. Hence, the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in placing reliance on the decision rendered by non-jurisdictional High Court, when there is a decision of jurisdictional High Court on the very same issue. An identical issue in the case of Nirmal Enviro Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [ 2021 (10) TMI 844 - ITAT BANGALORE] relating to assessment year 2018-19, wherein the Tribunal following the decision rendered by another coordinate bench in the case of the Continental Restaurant Caf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 2 TMI 127 dated 9.12.2013), wherein it was held that the contributions, if paid before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act, the same is allowable u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act since the provisions of section 43B of the Act override section 36(va) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170), upheld the disallowance. Aggrieved the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 4. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows:- 7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not remitted the employees' contribution of PF of ₹ 1,06,190 and ESI of ₹ 16,055 totaling to ₹ 1,22,245 before the due date specified under the respective Act. However, the assessee had paid the same before the due date of filing of the return u/s. 139(1) of the I.T. Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Act is made, the employer is entitled for deduction. 21. The submission of Mr. Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue that if the employer fails to deduct the employees' contribution on or before the due date, contemplated under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that as his income, deserves to be rejected. 22. With respect, we find it difficult to endorse the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. WE agree with the view taken by this Court in W.A. No. 4077/2013. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the substantial question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib. ii) NCC Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0060 Hyd Tribunal. (iii) Indian Geotechnical Services v. ACIT in ITA No. 622/Del/2018 (order dated 27.08.2021). (iv) M/s. Jana Urban Services for Transformation Private Limited v. DCIT in ITA No. 307/Bang/2021 (order dated 11th October, 2021) 7.3 In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial pronouncements cited supra, the amendment to section 36(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act by Finance Act, 2021 will not have application for the relevant assessment year, namely A.Y. 2019-2020. Accordingly, I direct the A.O. to grant deduction in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
