PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 vs. PLANMAN HR PVT. LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/599/2017HC DelhiDLHC01321420201711 September 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that payments made before the due date of filing the return are considered within the 'due date' for the purpose of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The court followed its previous decision in CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's order deleting an addition made by the AO for late deposit of PF, ESI, and professional tax. The assessee had paid the employees' contribution to PF before the due date of filing the return.

What were the issues?

Whether late deposit of employees' contribution to PF, ESI, and professional tax can be disallowed as a deduction. Whether payment before the return filing date qualifies as being within the 'due date' for Section 36(1)(va).

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(2)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.

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 599/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 7 ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue. versus PLANMAN HR PVT. LTD., ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Ved Jain, Ms.Rano Jain, Ms.Devina Sharma, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 11.09.2017 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against an order dated 23rd January 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 5028/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2013-14. 2. The question urged is as under: “Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. ITAT was correct in a case in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,91,59,691/- made by the AO on account of late deposit of PF, ESI and professional tax ignoring the provisions of Section 36(l)(va) and Section 7(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?”

3.

Factually, it has been found by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] as well as by the ITAT, concurrently, that the payment by the Assessee employer towards the employees’ contribution of the Provident Fund was made before the date of filing of the return by the Assessee and thus, in terms of the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Del), it was within the ‘due date’ for the purpose of Section 36 (1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) read with Section 43 (B) thereof. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue attempted to persuade this Court to reconsider the correctness of its decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. AIMIL Ltd. (supra). The Court finds that the decision has consistently been followed in later decisions of this Court and even by the Allahabad High Court in Sagun Foundry Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur (2017) 291 CTR (All) 557 and the Karnataka High Court in M/s Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 366 ITR 408 (Kar). 5. Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded to frame the question of law as urged by the Revenue. The appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 j

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 →