Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd.

269 ITR 285High Court2004#548 most cited

What is Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions towards ESI and PF are allowable as a deduction if paid by the due date for filing the income tax return, even if paid after the statutory due dates prescribed under the respective ESI/PF Acts.

176

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jairam & Sons · 269 ITR 285 · ESI contribution deduction · PF contribution deduction · employee contributions · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · due date for payment · income tax return due date · allowability of deduction

Judgments citing Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd.

M/S Varindra Tools Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, II, Jalandhar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 97/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: 03.10.2021. 2. That Necessary Fees Was Deposited Well Before Time I.E. 29.09.2021. 3. That Appeal Was Sent To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar On 30.09.2021 Through Courier Well Before Due Of Date Of Filing Of Appeal. It Was Expected That Courier Will Reach Itat Office Well Before Due Date. However, On Receipt Of Letter, We Have Come To Know That There Is Delay Of 2 Days In Filing Of Appeal. 4. That We Are Enclosing Herewith Copy Of Receipt Of Courier & Track Record In Support Of The Fact That Courier Sent On 30.09.2021 Was Delivered In The Office Of Itat On 05.10.2021 Resulting In Delay Of 2 Days. 5. That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Has Happened Because Of Reasons Beyond Control Of Assessee. Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional.

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…15] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the ri…