EKTA AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA - 1246 / 2008HC Delhi23 December 200915 pages
For Petitioner: RAJIV SAXENA
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition relating to employees' contribution under Section 36(1)(va) was incorrect. The Supreme Court's decision in Vinay Cement Ltd. was affirmed, stating that if the payment is made before the return filing due date, the deduction is allowable.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited employees' contribution towards provident fund and ESI after the due date. The Assessing Officer made an addition to the income under Section 36(1)(va) for the employees' contribution and under Section 43B for the employers' contribution.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition for employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESI made under Section 36(1)(va) when deposited after the due date but before the return filing date.

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(3)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.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg)

+ ITA No. 1214/2008 with ITA No. 1246/2008

% Reserved on: December 04, 2009 Pronounced on: December 23, 2009

1.

ITA No. 1214/2008

Nirmala Swami

A ... Appellant

through:

Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Johnson Bara, Advocates

**VERSUS**

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - VIII

... Respondent

through:

Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate

2.

<u>ITA No. 1246/2008</u>

M/s. Ekta Agro Industries Ltd.

... Appellant

through:

**NEMO**

**VERSUS**

Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1)

... Respondent

through:

NEMO

CORAM:-

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

- 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? - 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J.

For orders, see ITA No. 1063/2006. hid

JUDGE

(SIDDHARTH MRIDUL)

HIDG

19-24

### IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

π

ITA No. 1063 of 2006

ITA No.755 of 2008

ITA No. 204 of 2009

ITA No. 1214/2008 with ITA No. 1246/2008 ITA No. 78/2009

%

Reserved on: December 04, 2009 Pronounced on: December

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 →