CHECKMATE FACILITY AND ELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/829/2018HC GujaratGJHC24030121201810 July 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present Tax Appeals is squarely covered against the assessee by the binding decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax II Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat). The learned advocate for the assessee did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the Court found that no substantial question of law arises from the orders under challenge. Therefore, all the Tax Appeals deserved to be dismissed and were accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeals involve common questions of law arising from the assessment years of the assessee, Checkmate Facility and Electronic Solutions Pvt Ltd, and another assessee in Tax Appeal No. 830/2018. The dispute concerns the disallowance of delayed employee contributions to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI). The Assessing Officer made the disallowance, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee is challenging these orders before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, as a question of law, the delay in depositing employee's contribution to PF and ESI leads to a disallowance under Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee's contention, as presented by Shri Vora, learned advocate, is that the issue is covered by a binding decision of the Division Bench of this Court. The Revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(24)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/828/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 828 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 829 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 830 of 2018 ====================================== CHECKMATE FACILITY AND ELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD Versus DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX ====================================== Appearance: MR. HARDIK V VORA(7123) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

Date : 10/07/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] As common question arise in the present group of Tax Appeals, all these Tax Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common order. [2.0] At the outset, it is required to be noted that Tax Appeal Nos.828/2018 & 829/2018 are with respect to the same assessee but different Assessment Years and Tax Appeal No.830/2018 is with respect to another assessee but involving the same issue. [3.0] Heard Shri Vora, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective assessee. Having considered the Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/828/2018 ORDER submissions made by Shri Vora, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective assessee and considering the order of assessment passed by the learned Assessing Officer confirmed by the learned CIT(A) and confirmed by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the dispute is with respect to Section 2(24)(x) for delay in employee’s contribution to PF and ESI. It is not in dispute that the issue involved in the present Tax Appeal is squarely covered against the assessee in view of the binding decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax II Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat). The aforesaid is not disputed by Shri Vora, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee. In view of the binding decision of this Court, no substantial question of law arises, and therefore, all these Tax Appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) siji Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 2(24)(x)

All 2,270 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(24)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →