AJIT KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT/AC, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 72/PAT/2021Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 June 2024AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that strict compliance with Section 36(1)(va) is mandatory for claiming deductions. The Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. was followed, which held that delayed deposit of employee contributions to PF & ESI results in addition to income.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 1,80,45,483/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). This disallowance was due to the delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, even if made before the due date of filing the return, is 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 2(24)(x),Section 43B,Section 139(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, “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, C.A
Hearing: 06/05/2024Pronounced: 24/06/2024

O R D E R

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

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 →