SSB CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NAYAGAON vs. ITO WARD 6(1), MOHALI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly confirmed the disallowance. The assessee failed to demonstrate that the employee's contribution was paid within the due date, thus, the deduction cannot be allowed as a business expenditure.
What were the facts?
The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the disallowance of Rs.24,95,732/-. This disallowance was made because the assessee was unable to pay employees' contribution to ESI/PF accounts within the due date.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI/PF, not paid within the due date, is justified?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT1,392 citing448 ITR 518 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 11.03.2024 passed for assessment year 2019-20. 2. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal
, however, its grievance revolves around a single issue namely, ld. A.Y.2019-20
2. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.24,95,732/- which was made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was unable to pay employees’ contribution to respective ESI/PF Accounts within the due date, therefore, following the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P.
Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC), addition has been confirmed.
On due consideration of the record with the assistance of ld. Representative, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
The ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the disallowance. It has not been demonstrated before us as to how employees’ contribution was paid to respective ESI/PF accounts within due date and if it was not paid within due date, then deduction cannot be allowed to the assessee as business expenditure.
The ld. CIT(A) has rightly placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. A.Y.2019-20 3
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
