COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - III vs. M/S MYSORE MINERALS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/145/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01018276201308 March 2017Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that delayed payments of employee's contribution to PF and ESI are available for deduction as revenue expenditure. This decision was based on a prior ruling by the same court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI due to delayed remittance. The High Court was to decide on substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed remittance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI makes it disallowable as a deduction. Whether the ITAT's order was perverse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x)

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.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2017

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N K SUDHINDRARAO ITA NO.145/2013 BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE

2.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(1) BANGALORE

...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S MYSORE MINERALS LTD NO.39, M G ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A SHANKAR & M LAVA, ADVOCATES)

2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 02/11/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.350/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006, PRAYS TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 02/11/2012 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.350/BANG/2011, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellant-revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature as Tribunal has relied upon decisions which are not applicable to facts of present case?

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is

3 right in holding that disallowed payments in respect of the employee’s contribution of Rs.13,49,849/- and Rs.14,543/- under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of IT Act on account of delay in remittance of PF/ESI respectively is not in accordance with law?”

2.

We have heard Mr.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellant-revenue and Mr.A.Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. 3. When the matter came up for consideration, the counsel for appellant-revenue has brought to our notice that after the filing of the present appeal, the question is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in case of Essae Teraoka Pvt.Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2014) 366 ITR 408 wherein it has been held that contribution made towards PF and the delayed payments are available for deduction as the Revenue Expenditure.

4 4. Since the decision is a reported decision, we find that the same need not be repeated so as not to burden the record. As such, in view of the abovereferred decision, the questions would no more remain as substantial questions of law but, even if it is to be answered, in view of the above referred decision of this Court, the question shall stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. The appeal shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

Sk/-

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 →