RAMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,DELHI vs. DCIT, SPL. RANGE-12, DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee deposited the employee contribution after the due date specified in the relevant act. The contention that the deposit was made before the due date of filing the return of income was held to be irrelevant, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Rama Construction Company, appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a disallowance of Rs. 10,67,378/-. This disallowance was on account of late payment of employee contributions to the Provident Fund.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance on account of late payment of employee's contribution to Provident Fund is justified, even if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT1,392 citing440 ITR 518 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi, dated 24.11.2021 pertaining to AY 2017-18.
The Solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance on account of late payment of Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 10,67,378/-.
ITA No.-209/Del/2023 Rama Construction company . 3. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the assessee deposited the employee contribution after the due date given in the specified act. The contention of the Counsel that the amount has been deposited before the due date of filing of the return is of no use as this quarrel has been now well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. in 440 ITR 518. Respectfully following the same, the appeal is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.09.2023.
More judgments on Section 43B
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), MumbaiITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
- Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, GurgaonITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, MumbaiITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
