ITO, CHENNAI vs. Q.SOURCE GLOBAL CONSULTING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the allowance of employees' PF/ESI contributions and rental payments where payees had already paid taxes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in manpower supply and consultancy, remitted employees' PF/ESI contributions after the statutory due date but before the return filing due date. Additionally, rent payments were made without deducting TDS in one assessment year.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of employees' PF/ESI contributions is warranted when remitted before the return filing due date, and whether disallowance of rent is justified if the payee has already paid taxes on the income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 2(24)(x),Section 36(1)(va),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 201(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.1,344 citing319 ITR 306 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd.87 citing357 ITR 642 · 2013 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The Revenue filed these appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, Chennai in & 188/16-17/CIT(A)-3 dated 28.02.2017 and 30.05.2017, for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, respectively.
:-2-: & 2062/Chny/2017
M/s. Q Source Global Consulting Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, is in the business of man power supply & consultancy services. While making the assessments for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, the AO found that the assessee has not remitted the employees contribution towards PF/ESI within the due date under the respective statue, but made it well within the due date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of that, he disallowed such sums u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w. 36(1)(va). Further, the Assessing Officer noticed in assessment year 2013-14 that the assessee has remitted rent without deducting TDS and hence he disallowed Rs. 4,35,368/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee relied the decision of the Supreme Court, the decisions of ITAT and the Jurisdictional High Court viz., 319ITR 306(SC), ACIT vs Shri Kanniyan Kumaraswamy, ITAT, Chennai, Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd vs DCIT, Chennai and CIT vs M/s Industrial Security and Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd., High Court decision in (TCA Nos. 585 & 586/2015 & MP No. 01/2015). Following the above decisions, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, respectively. In respect of TDS disallowance on the rent, the assessee pleaded before the CIT(A) that the payees have admitted the impugned rental payments in their returns and paid the taxes. When the genuineness of the expenditure is not doubted, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) cannot be made and it relied on the decision of CIT vs Vector Shipping Services Ltd., (357 ITR 642) (Allahabad) etc. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved against the orders of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed these appeals.
:-3-: & 2062/Chny/2017
We heard the rival submissions. On the issue of disallowance on the Employees Contribution towards PF/ESI, u/s.s 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) since, the CIT(A) has applied the Jurisdictional High Court decision and the ITAT decisions, supra, we do not find any reason to interfere with his orders and hence the corresponding grounds of the Revenue are dismissed.
With regard to the disallowance on rental payments without deduction of TDS, the assessee pleaded that these rental payments were already admitted as income by the payees and they have paid their taxes and hence, the disallowance is not warranted in accordance with first proviso of section 201(1) of the Act. We find merit in the submissions of the assessee and hence dismiss the corresponding grounds of the Revenue.
In the result, the Revenue appeals in & 2062/Chny/2017 for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, respectively, are dismissed.
Order pronounced in Tuesday, the 01st day of May 2018, at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 2(24)(x)
- Bharata Thakrya Thakur, Nerul, Navi Mumbai vs Assistant Director of Income Tax, BengaluruITA 6024/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Bharat Thakrya Thakur, Nerul, Navi Mumbai vs Assistant Director of Income Tax, BengaluruITA 6023/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Bharat Thakrya Thakur, Nerul, Navi Mumbai vs Assistant Director of Income Tax, BengaluruITA 6022/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Bharat Thakrya Thakur, Nerul, Navi Mumbai vs Assistant Director of Income Tax, BengaluruITA 6021/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Manipal Technologies Limited, Manipal vs ITO 1 Udupi, UdupiITA 10/BANG/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026