Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

143 Taxmann.com 178Supreme Court of India2022#28 most cited

What is Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

1,392

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Checkmate Services · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · employees contribution to PF · ESI payment · due date for deposit · Section 143(1) disallowance · delayed payment of PF/ESI · Provident Fund · Employee State Insurance · 448 ITR 518 · 143 Taxmann.com 178

Also reported as

448 ITR 518218 DTR 401

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 143(1)Section 43BSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 139(1)Section 250Section 37(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(iv)section 143(1)(a)(iv)section 34(1)(iv)section 2(24)(x)employees contribution to pfsection 36(1)(va)section 43b(b)section 34(1)section 2(24)section 43bsection 36(1)section 36

Judgments citing Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Thakker Developers Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 179/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

…of treating the employee’s share as having the same character as that of the employer’s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer’s share and employees’ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer’s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…

Varad Crop Science Private Limited, Jalna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 155/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

…of treating the employee’s share as having the same character as that of the employer’s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer’s share and employees’ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer’s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…

Varad Crop Science Private Limited, Jalna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 154/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

…of treating the employee’s share as having the same character as that of the employer’s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer’s share and employees’ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer’s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…

The Residency Club, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Kolhapur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 137/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

…of treating the employee’s share as having the same character as that of the employer’s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer’s share and employees’ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer’s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…

Seema Santosh Ghone, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 116/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

…of treating the employee’s share as having the same character as that of the employer’s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer’s share and employees’ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer’s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…

Seema Santosh Ghone, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 115/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

…of treating the employee’s share as having the same character as that of the employer’s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer’s share and employees’ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer’s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…

Satish Madhaorao Yeole, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Pune

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 107/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

…of treating the employee’s share as having the same character as that of the employer’s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer’s share and employees’ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer’s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…

V D M-Power P Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 105/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

…of treating the employee’s share as having the same character as that of the employer’s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer’s share and employees’ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer’s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…

Yashwant Forgings P Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

…of treating the employee’s share as having the same character as that of the employer’s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer’s share and employees’ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer’s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…

Ginza Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 620/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
Section 14ASection 250Section 80J

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ- ‘A’ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH-A "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"यएवं सम" : "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं.य/ "नधा"रण वष"ः Assessment Year:2013-14 And "नधा"रण वष"ः Assessment Year:2014-15 Ginza Industries Ltd DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata बनाम/ A-501 & 502, Lotus Aaykar Bhavan, P-7 V/s. Corporate Park, Jay Chowringhee Square, Coach Lane, off Westtern Kolkata-700 069. Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063. PAN: AABCG 0675P अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ S…

Ginza Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 619/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
Section 14ASection 250Section 80J

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ- ‘A’ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH-A "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"यएवं सम" : "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं.य/ "नधा"रण वष"ः Assessment Year:2013-14 And "नधा"रण वष"ः Assessment Year:2014-15 Ginza Industries Ltd DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata बनाम/ A-501 & 502, Lotus Aaykar Bhavan, P-7 V/s. Corporate Park, Jay Chowringhee Square, Coach Lane, off Westtern Kolkata-700 069. Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063. PAN: AABCG 0675P अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ S…

Sys Information Healthcare India Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1026/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2020-21 Sys Information Healthcare Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 2254, Kousalya, 2nd Floor, Circle 1(1) & TPS, Vinobha Road, Mysore. Mysuru – 570 005. PAN: AAJCS 4539A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member…

M/S/ P.R. Packing Service, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2376/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Action Of The Adit-Cpc Bangalore In Making Disallowance Of Employees Contribution To Provident

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s P R Packaging Service Vs. Assistant Commissioner of 1A, 1st Floor, Pushpam CHS Income Tax-25(3), Mumbai Ltd, K.D. Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056 PAN/GIR No.AAEEP6431E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri K Gopal Revenue by Shri. Shambhu Yadav Date of Hearing 06/12/2022 Date of Pronouncement 07/12/2022 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.2376/Mum/2022 for A.Y.2019-20 is preferred by the assessee against th…

ACIT Cir 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Merck Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1798/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8Th Floor, Dcit 7(2)(1) Pirojshanagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Merk Limited Acit Cir 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2616F Assessee By : Ms. Arativissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022

For Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM M/s. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8th Floor, DCIT 7(2)(1) PirojshaNagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Merk Limited ACIT CIR 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACE2616F Assessee by : Ms. AratiVissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue by : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date of hearing: 07.09.2022 Date of pron…

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1525/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8Th Floor, Dcit 7(2)(1) Pirojshanagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Merk Limited Acit Cir 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2616F Assessee By : Ms. Arativissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022

For Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM M/s. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8th Floor, DCIT 7(2)(1) PirojshaNagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Merk Limited ACIT CIR 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACE2616F Assessee by : Ms. AratiVissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue by : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date of hearing: 07.09.2022 Date of pron…

Sumathi Corporate Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 530/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 530/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/s. Sumathi Corporate Vs. Income Tax Officer, Services Private Limited, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN No. AAKCS8202M] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध / Assessee by: NONE रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध / Revenue by: Ms. Swapna, DR सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date of hearing: 30/11/2022 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 30/11/2022 आदे…

Aroma Aromatics and Flavours, Delhi vs. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1646/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Pradap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Chand, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1646/Del./2021 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2018-19) Aroma Aromatics and Flavours, vs. CIT(A), NFAC, A-127, Okhla Industrial Area Phase II, Delhi. Delhi – 110 020. (PAN : AADFA2744G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Pradap Gupta, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Jeetendra Chand, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 11.11.2022 Date of Order : 30.11.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Facel…

Jamuna Infraprojects P Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Nashik

In the result, all appeals of different assessees are dismissed

ITA 92/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of treating the employee‘s share as having the same character as that of the employer‘s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer‘s share and employees‘ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer‘s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…

Jamuna Infraprojects P Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Nashik

In the result, all appeals of different assessees are dismissed

ITA 91/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of treating the employee‘s share as having the same character as that of the employer‘s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer‘s share and employees‘ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer‘s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…

Anand Construwell P Ltd, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all appeals of different assessees are dismissed

ITA 83/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of treating the employee‘s share as having the same character as that of the employer‘s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer‘s share and employees‘ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer‘s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…