TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT DELHI] has held that amendment made by Finance Bill 2021 shall take effect from 1st April 2021 and will accordingly apply to A.Y. 2021-11 and subsequent years. In the present case assessment year involved is 2018-19 and therefore following the aforesaid decision in the case of Indian Geotechnical Services (supra), amended provisions would have no application to the case under consideration. Before me, Learned DR has relied on the decision in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. [ 2021 (8) TMI 1219 - ITAT DELHI] . It is settled law that when two judgments are available giving different views then the judgment which is in favour of the assessee shall apply as held in case of Vegetable Products Ltd. [ 1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contribution towards ESI u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961,ignoring the fact that such addition was not attracted under the said section. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 212560 made by the Id Assessing Officer representing delay in remittance of employee contribution towards PF u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961,ignoring the fact that such addition was not attracted under the said section. 3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 25263 made by the Id Assessing Officer representing delay in remittance of employee contribution towards ESI in contravention to the applicable law and the decisions of the jurisdictional courts. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Before me, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and pointed to the chart of payment reproduced by the CIT(A) under para 4.15 of the order and from that table he pointed out that though there has been slight delay in deposit of the employees contribution of PF/ESIC but the fact remains that the entire contributions received by the assessee have been deposited with the appropriate authorities by the assessee before the filing of return of income. He therefore submitted that in such a situation no disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act is called for and for this preposition, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265 (Delhi). He also placed reliance on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent ground is with respect to disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that there has been slight delay in the deposit of employees contribution of PF and ESI by the assessee and the contribution have been deposited beyond the due date prescribed by the relevant authorities but at the same time it is also a fact that the amounts have been deposited with the appropriate authorities by the assessee before filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year. I find that Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (supra) has held that no disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act is called for when the amounts are deposited before filing the return of income. Similar view has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
