DECO MICA LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1(1)(1)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the issues raised in the appeal were no longer res integra in light of its own prior judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited, reported in 366 ITR 170 [Gujarat]. The learned senior counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the issues were squarely covered by this decision. However, he pointed out that an appeal against the High Court's judgment in the GSRTC case was pending before the Supreme Court, and leave had been granted. The High Court dismissed the present appeal at that stage. It provided a liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal within three months from the date of the Supreme Court's judgment, should the Supreme Court reverse the GSRTC decision. No specific finding was given on the merits of the disallowance, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds pending a higher court's decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Deco Mica Limited, filed the present appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad against an order dated 19/04/2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'B' Bench, Ahmedabad. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16. The core of the dispute involves the disallowance of Rs.17,77,538/-. The assessee is challenging the ITAT's confirmation of this disallowance. The procedural history indicates that the assessee is now before the High Court after the ITAT's decision.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in confirming the disallowance of Rs.17,77,538/- under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in not appreciating that the due date for payment of employer's contribution to EPF/ESI should be reckoned from the date of actual salary payment, not accrual? 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in not appreciating that the amounts are allowable under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act, having been deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1)? The assessee argued that the disallowance was incorrect and that the due date for employer's contribution should be linked to the actual payment of salary. The assessee also contended that the amounts deposited before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowable. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but it is implied they supported the disallowance.
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
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
This appeal is at the instance of a assessee and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Ahmedabad dated 19/04/2021 in the ITA No.2198/Ahd/2018 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The appellant – assessee has proposed the following substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs.17,77,538/- under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not appreciating that the due date of payment of employers’ contribution into the Government Treasury as contemplated under the provisions of Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 should be reckoned from the date of actual payment of salary and not its accrual? C/TAXAP/302/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not appreciating that the amounts are allowable under Section 36(1) (va) read with section 43B of the Act, having been deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act?
We have heard Mr. Tushar Himani, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assess referred to above are no longer res-integra in view of the main judgment of this High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited, reported in 366 ITR 170 [Gujarat].
Mr. Himani, the learned senior counsel very fairly submitted that the issues on hand as such are squarely by the above referred decision of this High Court. However, he pointed out that the appeal against the judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court is pending. He pointed out that the leave has been granted and appeal has been admitted.
We dismiss this appeal at this stage. However, in the event, if the Supreme Court reverses the judgment in the G.S.R.T.C. [Supra], it would be open for the appellant herein to revive this appeal by filing an application for such purpose within three months from the date of the judgment. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) A. B. VAGHELA
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026