AIR CONTROL AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/830/2018HC GujaratGJHC24030629201810 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 concerning the delay in depositing employee's contribution to PF and ESI is squarely covered against the assessee by a binding decision of a Division Bench of the same 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 counsel for the assessee did not dispute this binding precedent. Consequently, the Court found that no substantial question of law arises from the orders passed by the lower authorities. Therefore, all the Tax Appeals were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns a group of Tax Appeals filed by CHECKMATE FACILITY AND ELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD and another assessee against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeals pertain to different assessment years but involve a common issue. The Assessing Officer's order, confirmed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, is under challenge. The core dispute revolves around the treatment of delayed employee contributions to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) under the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel, Shri Vora, appeared before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI by the assessee is to be considered as income under Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the relevant assessment years. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee's counsel, Shri Vora, other than acknowledging his appearance and submissions. However, the context implies the assessee is challenging the disallowance or addition made by the revenue authorities. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

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 →