KARIMUDDIN SANI,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 930/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 November 2021AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions which allowed deduction if payments were made before the return filing date. The Finance Act 2021's clarification was not applied retrospectively.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was processed under section 143(1) and a disallowance of Rs. 2,28,545/- was made for delayed payment of employee contributions to PF/ESI/superannuation fund. The assessee contended that payments were made before the due date of filing the return.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI beyond the statutory due date but before the return filing date is an allowable expenditure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 43B,Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, DELHI “SMC-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Paramjit Khanna, CA
For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Hearing: 11.11.2021Pronounced: 11.11.2021

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre “NFAC”

dated 31.07.2021. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

“That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts in sustaining the order of intimation so passed by learned Assessing Officer under section 143(1) of the Act and the additions made thereafter, which additions were beyond the scope and juri iction of intimation order so passed under section 143(1) of the Act.

2.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts by sustaining a disallowance of a sum of Rs. 2,28,545/- on account o

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →