(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

Sri.Purusothaman K.K., Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO, WD-3, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…A. No.51/Coch/2019 observed that the the issue of allowability of deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the employees contribution towards EPF was covered against the assessee by the decision of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Merchem Ltd, (378 ITR 443) wherein it was held that the deduction under section 36(1)(va) is available to the assessee only if the payment is deposited before the due date specified in that section. Hence, the CIT(A) held that the assessee is not entitled for deduction of contribution of employees u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. Against this, the assessee is in appeal be…

M/S.Ponmudi Rubbers Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

…he I.T.Act, the assessee is entitled to deduction towards contribution to the PF only when the same is paid on or before the due date for making such payment under the PF Act. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited [(2015) 378 ITR 443 (Ker.)] had held that the employees’ contribution if not remitted within due date mentioned in the Provident Fund Act, was not entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Merchem Limited (supra), we are of the view that the disallowance of Rs.10,126 towards em…

M/S.Inditrade Capital Ltd (Formerly Known As Jrg Securities Ltd), Kochi vs. The Adcit, Range-1, Ochi, Kochi

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) in respect of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI. 3. After hearing both the parties, we find that this issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. (378 ITR 443) wherein it was held that due date in the respective ESI/PF Act is the date to be considered for allowing deduction u/s. 36(1)(va). 3.1 In view of the above judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court, we are inclined to reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. Hence, employees’ contribution to PF/ESI after due…

The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi vs. M/S.Jrg Securities(Presently Inditrade Capital Ltd), Kochi

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) in respect of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI. 3. After hearing both the parties, we find that this issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. (378 ITR 443) wherein it was held that due date in the respective ESI/PF Act is the date to be considered for allowing deduction u/s. 36(1)(va). 3.1 In view of the above judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court, we are inclined to reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. Hence, employees’ contribution to PF/ESI after due…

The Kerala State Co-Op Coir Marketing Federation Ltd, Alappuzha vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Alappuzha

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

…f the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved by the confirmation of disallowance, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited [(2015) 378 ITR 443 (Ker.)], dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The assessee being aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order, has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the employees’ contributions received by the assessee were paid before the date of the filing of the return, and hence, was an allowable deduction. The learned Depar…