DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S APOLLO POWER SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contribution to PF and ESI, even if deposited after the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return, is allowable. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
What were the facts?
The assessee company remitted employees' contributions to PF and ESI after the due dates specified under the respective Acts but before the due date for filing the return of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed this as a deduction, treating it as income in the hands of the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid after the due date under the respective Acts but before the due date of filing the return is eligible for deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 2(24)(x),Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 139(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.
- 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises706 citing298 ITR 141 · 2008 · HC
- M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO262 citing43 Taxmann.com 33 · 2014 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI JASON P BOAZ
Per Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM:
In this appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the order of the CIT(A)–I, Bangalore, dated 20/01/2015 in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘Act'] by following the decision of the juri ictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not remitted the employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI within the due date M/s.Apollo Power Systems Pvt. Ltd. specified under the Act and as such, these sums are income in the hands of the assessee in terms of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act.
Brief fac
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.
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 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 →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026