CHATTAR PAL,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 976/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 November 2021AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in AIMIL Ltd. and Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. These judgments allow deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed, even if it's after the statutory due date.

What were the facts?

The assessee made late payments of employee contributions to Provident Fund (PF) but deposited them before the due date of filing the return of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction for these late payments, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether late payment of employee's contribution to Provident Fund, made before the due date of filing the return of income, is allowable as a deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 L C Yadav, 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 03.08.2021. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

“That Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. DCIT, CPC in making addition of Rs.24,63,622/- on account of late payment of Provident Fund u/s 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and raising demand of Rs.5,49,130/- on this account.

2.

That Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. DCIT, CPC in making addition of Rs.24,63,622/- on account of late payment of Provident Fund u/s 36(1)(va) without considering; the latest case laws after the amendment itself, decided the is

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 →