M/S SHREE HANUMAN LOHA PVT LTD,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 18/BIL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 August 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if employee's contribution to PF and ESIC is deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted. This decision followed a previous ruling by the same bench.

What were the facts?

The assessee debited amounts for ESIC and employee's contribution to PF in its accounts. The Assessing Officer disallowed amounts deposited after the due date prescribed under the respective Acts, but before the due date for filing the return of income.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC is justified when deposited after the statutory due date but before the due date for filing the return of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 43B,Section 139(1)

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, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jain, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

30.11.

2015 of the ld. CIT(A)- 1, Raipur (CG) relating to assessment year

2012-13. 2. The ld. counsel for the assessee did not press the ground of appeal no.1

relating to ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of manufacturing

expenses for which ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, the ground of appeal

no.1 by the assessee is dismissed.

3.

Ground no.2 by the assessee reads as under :- “2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. of Rs.1,75,233/- on account of 2 delay in payment of PF/ESIC. The addition made by A.O. and sustained by Ld. CI

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 →