TALENT ANYWHERE SERVICES PVT. LTD. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by its previous decision in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 265 CTR 64. In that judgment, the Court had observed that when an employer has not credited the sum received as employees' contribution to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date prescribed in the explanation to Section 36(1)(va), the assessee is not entitled to a deduction. The Tribunal had relied on this decision to uphold the disallowance. The High Court noted that the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No specific finding was recorded on the second question as the appeal was dismissed on the strength of the precedent.
What were the facts?
This Tax Appeal, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is by Talent Anywhere Services Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad 'D' Bench, dated July 10, 2018, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal challenges the disallowance of Rs. 51,06,031/- towards Employees' Contribution to PF and Rs. 2,82,708/- towards Employees' Contribution to ESIC. The assessee had deposited these contributions before the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had confirmed the disallowance, relying on a Gujarat High Court decision. The ITAT also upheld the disallowance, citing the same High Court judgment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 51,06,031/- (Employees' PF contribution) and Rs. 2,82,708/- (Employees' ESIC contribution) despite the assessee depositing these amounts before the due date under Section 139(1) of the Act? 2. If the answer to the first question is affirmative, whether the Tribunal was legally correct in confirming the disallowance for all months, even though for some months, the PF and ESIC contributions were made within the due date as prescribed under Section 36(1)(va), when such due date is reckoned from the end of the month of salary payment? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the contributions were deposited before the due date specified under Section 139(1). They also contended that for some months, the deposits were within the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) when reckoned from the end of the month of salary payment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the disallowance upheld by the lower authorities, contended that the employer had not deposited the employees' contributions to the relevant funds on or before the due date prescribed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, thus making the deduction impermissible.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
C/TAXAP/137/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 137 of 2019 ============================================= TALENT ANYWHERE SERVICES PVT. LTD. Versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1) ============================================= Appearance: JENIL M SHAH(7840) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO
Date : 18/06/2019
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Assessee and is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad “D” Bench dated 10.07.2018 in ITA No.1327/Ahd/2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The following questions have been proposed as the substantial questions of law in the memorandum of the tax appeal : “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs.51,06,031/- towards Employees Contribution to PF and Rs.2,82,708/- towards Employees contribution to ESIC in spite of the fact that the same were deposited with the relevant fund before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act? (ii) If the answer to the above question is in affirmative, whether the Tribunal was right in conforming the disallowance for all the months in spite of the fact that Page 1 of 2
C/TAXAP/137/2019 ORDER for some of the months such contribution to PF as well as ESIC was within the due date as prescribed u/s 36(1) (va) if such due date is reckoned from the end of the month in which the salaries are paid?” 3. The Tribunal in its impugned order has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 265 CTR 64 and has observed as under : “4. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance after placing reliance on the decision of jurisdictional high court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 265 CTR 65. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record carefully. We have noticed that the assessee has not deposited the contribution received from the employees within the due dates as prescribed under the Provident Fund Act & ESIC. We consider that that Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 265 CTR 64 has held that when the employer has not credited the sum received by it as employees contribution to employees account in relevant fund on or before due date as prescribed in explanation to section 36(i)(va) the assessee shall not be entitled to deduction. In view of the above facts and the judicial findings, we uphold the decision of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 4. The issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court. The issue is now pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. In view of the above, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J) Dolly Page 2 of 2
More judgments on Section 139(1)
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 485/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026