GEEKAY FACILITY MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 145/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 December 2023AY 2018-195 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that employee contributions not deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective Acts are disallowable. The assessee's argument regarding the due date being linked to salary payment dates was rejected.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deductions for employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and labor welfare fund paid after the statutory due dates. The Assessing Officer disallowed these amounts, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether employee contributions to provident fund and ESI paid beyond the statutory due dates are disallowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 224(X)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, CA
For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. AR
Hearing: 13.12.2023Pronounced: 18.12.2023
1.

A.Y. 2018-19, is filed by the assessee recalled by the order dated 3rd November, 2023 in MA No.250/Mum/2023, which was earlier disposed off on 29th July, 2022, consequent to the MA filed by the Revenue.

2.

Now, only issue remains in this appeal is that whether the employees’ contribution towards provident fund, employees state insurance scheme and labor welfare fund paid beyond the due dates specified in the respective Act, are disallowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.

6.

The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the employees contribution paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act of provident Fund and ESIC cannot be allowed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12- 10-2022. 07. We have carefully heard the rival contentions, we find that the claim of the assessee is that out of the employees contribution of ESIC of ₹3,94,983/-, ₹3,07,550/- has been paid before the due date prescribed under the respective Act. On verification of such dates, we find that the assessee has taken the due dates from the date of payment of salaries and wages as per bank statement. It is apparent that this submission is directly covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Madras High Court. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the due dates should be taken of the respective Act from the date of payment of wages is not

8.

Therefore there is no infirmity in the disallowance made by the ld AO . Same is also in conformity with the decision of Honourable Supreme court.

9.

In view of the decision, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (A) confirming the disallowance of ₹30,93,567/- under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 224(X) of the Act.

10.

In the result, all the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12. 2023.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →