MOHAMMED DARUS SALAM,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 946/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 November 2021AY 2018-1912 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employee's contribution towards PF/ESI cannot be permitted as a deduction. It respectfully followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of AIMIL Ltd. and Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction for delayed payment of employee's contribution towards Provident Fund. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction, and the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed payment of employee's contribution to Provident Fund is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)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 Manu K.Giri, Adv, Shri Aseem Chawla, Adv. &, Ms. Sonia Dudeja, Adv
Hearing: 11.11.2021Pronounced: 11.11.2021

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre

“NFAC” dated 28.06.2021. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

“That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the Intimation dated May 21, 2019 issued under section 143(1) of the Act by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru ('Ld. Assessing Officer).

2.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the adjustments made by the Ld. Assessing Officer ar

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 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →