State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Provident Fund Commissioner

10 SCC 123Reported decision2009#16369 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Judgments citing State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Provident Fund Commissioner

Phoenix Udyog Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 39/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.39/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Phoenix Udyog Pvt. Ltd.……….....................................……………....Appellant 9, Vishal Market, West Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi-110009. [Pan: Aaccp4046N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 18, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…I.T.A. No.39/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Phoenix Udyog Pvt. Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘एसएमसी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "गर"श अ"वाल लेखा सद"य के सम" , Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.39/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Phoenix Udyog Pvt. Ltd.……….....................................……………....Appellant 9, Vishal Market, West Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi-110009. [PAN: AACCP4046N] vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.......…..........................................…..…....…

Microviews Infosystems Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Ward-9(1), Kolkata

ITA 642/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.642/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Microviews Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. ………...................................……Appellant 148A, Cit Road, Scheme-Vim, Kolkata-700054. [Pan: Aafcm0646L] Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1), Kolkata….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May11, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.09.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…and casts an obligation upon the employer to make compulsory deduction for provident fund and to deposit in the workers account in the EPF office. The hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Maharashtra State Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner (2009) 10 SCC 123” has held, "Since the Act is a social welfare legislation intended to protect the interest of a weaker section of the society i.e. the workers employed in factories and other establishments, it is imperative for the courts to give a purposive interpretation to the provisions contained therein keeping in view the Directive Principles of State Polic…