ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S JAMMU & KASHMIR TOURISM DEVEOLPMENT CORPORATION, SRINAGAR

ITA 644/ASR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 March 2019AY 2013-148 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if such contributions are deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted. The disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited employer and employee contributions to provident fund and ESI after the due dates prescribed by the respective Acts. The Assessing Officer disallowed these contributions as deductions. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of employer/employee contributions to provident fund and ESI is justified when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, even if after the due date under the respective Acts.

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, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhry

For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, DR
Hearing: 21.02.2019Pronounced: 19.03.2019

Per N. S. Saini, Accountant Member:

These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), J&K, Jammu for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 both dated 29.06.2017. 2. The common issue involved in both the appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,14,77,766/- in assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.1,05,92,304/- in the assessment year 2014-15 on account of deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the AO by disallowing employers contribution to provident fund.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company had deposited the ITA Nos. 6

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 →