TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as applicable to both employer s as well as employees contribution. Furthermore, the amendment brought out in the Finance Act, 2021 was only prospective and not retrospective thereby was applicable only to assessment year 2021-22 onwards and to subsequent years. The same has been reiterated by the decision of various Benches of the Tribunal. Thus we are of the considered opinion that the contribution towards EPF / ESI paid after the specified due date under the relevant Acts, but nevertheless paid before the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, is allowable. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the deduction as claimed. Ground 1 of the assessee succeeds. Not giving credit to TDS - HELD T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are as follows:- GROUND No. I; Disallowance of Rs. 9,93,864/- on account of delay in payment of Employee's contribution to PF and ESIC u/s 36(1) (va); 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre ( the CIT(A) ) erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - CPC ( the AO ) of making a disallowance in Intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act on account of employee contribution amounting to Rs. 9,93,864/- made to Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance Fund after the due date of the relevant act but before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act GROUND No. II: Not giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts, but was deposited before the due date for filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, is an allowable deduction. The Ld.AR placed his further reliance on the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs Hindustan Organics Chemicals (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom) 2. Sagun Foundry (P) Ltd vs CIT (2017) 291 CTR 557 (All) 3. CIT vs Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Utt HC) 4. CIT vs State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj HC) 5. CIT vs Nipso Plyfabriks Ltd (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP HC) 6. CIT vs AIMIL Ltd (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del HC) 7. CIT vs Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd (2014) 266 CTR 241 (Kar)(HC) 8. Maksat Technologies (P) Ltd vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ards and to subsequent years. The same has been reiterated by the decision of various Benches of the Tribunal. 8. We have also considered the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the caswe of Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd in ITA No.1785/Mum/2021 dated April 27, 2022 wherein it has been held as under:- ........In our considered view, it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer CPC to take a view contrary to the view taken by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court more so, when his attention was specifically invited to the binding judicial precedents in this regard. For this reason also, the inputs in question in the tax audit report can not be reason enough to make the impugned disallowance. The assessee must succeed for this reason as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
