M/S CHEMPAKA KINDERGARTEN PVT. LTD.,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE CIT (APPEALS), CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 791/COCH/2022Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 September 2023AY 2019-2020Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that deductions under the Act are only granted when the conditions are strictly complied with. Since the payments were not made in compliance with Section 36(1)(va), the deemed income under Section 2(24)(x) was not eligible for deduction. This aligns with the Apex Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd.

What were the facts?

The assessee made payments of employees' contribution to EPF and ESI after the due date specified in the relevant enactments. The Assessing Officer passed a rectification order under section 154, and this order was confirmed by the first appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to EPF/ESI paid after the due date is valid. Whether a rectification order can be based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(24)(x),Section 36(1)(va),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)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, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM

Hearing: 07.09.2023

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.791/Coch/2022
TC.4/14

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R

Per Sanjay Arora, AM:

1.

This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the appellate order dated 22.06.2022, confirming the rectification order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), dated 25.04.2021 for assessment year (AY) 2019-2020.

2.

At the very outset, it was submitted by Smt.Telma Raju, the learned counsel for the assessee, that the assessee’s appeal is squarely covered against it by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC). The same may accordingly be dismissed.

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The only issue in the instant appeal is the disallowance effected u/s. 2(24)(x) r/ws. 36(1)(va), vide order u/s.154, since confirmed in first appeal. The primary facts are not in dispute. The payment of the employees’ contribution to the employees’ welfare fund, i.e., EPF and ESI, stands made after the due date as specified in the relevant enactments. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), following the

More judgments on Section 2(24)(x)

All 2,270 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(24)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →