KARTHIKEYAN SANJEEVI RAJA SUJJUR,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON-CORPORATE WARD1(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 852/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 August 2023AY 2021-222 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 upheld the disallowance, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT. The alternative claim for deduction under Section 37(1) was rejected as special provisions prevail over general ones.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the disallowance of late payment of Employees' contribution to PF/ESI. This adjustment was made by the CPC based on the Tax Audit Report and confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of late payment of Employees' contribution to PF/ESI is justified. Whether Section 37(1) can be invoked for deduction when specific provisions apply.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 37(1)

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, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The only issue in the captioned appeal is confirmation of disallowance of late payment of Employees’ contribution to PF / ESI. The CPC has made this adjustment u/s 143(1) as per reporting made in the Tax Audit Report. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the adjustment by relying on the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in bunch of appeals titled as Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs CIT (143 Taxmann.com 178). Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2.

Since impugned order follows a binding judicial precedent, no interference is called for in the same. The Ld. AR submitted that the deduction may be alternatively be allowed u/s 37(1). However, the same cannot be accepted since special provisions would prevail over general provisions. In the result, the appeals stand dismissed.

3.

Order pronounced on 28th August, 2023.

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →