JAGADAMBA POLYMERS (P) LIMITED,BALASORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALASORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 89/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 July 2025AY 2021-221 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee claims all payments were made within the due date. For verification, the issues are restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) to ascertain if payments were made within the due date and any extended time under the relevant Acts.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A). The issue pertains to the disallowance of PF & ESI payments. The assessee contended that all payments were made within the prescribed time, except for one instance.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of PF & ESI payments is justified, and verification of payment dates against prescribed and extended due dates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

IT Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 16/07/2025Pronounced: 16/07/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai, dated 17.01.2025, for the assessment year 2021-2022.

2.

It was submitted by the ld AR that the issue is in regard to the disallowance of PF & ESI. It was submitted by the ld AR that all the payments have been made within the prescribed time except one.

3.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and ld.AO. It was the submission that the ld. Addl./JCIT has rightly applied the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd., reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →