“section 10(23C)”

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

Depreciation claimed by a charitable trust on its assets is an allowable application of income for computing exemption under Section 11, and this does not constitute a double deduction.

A charitable trust is allowed to claim depreciation on its assets for computing its income, even if the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring those assets was treated as an application of income in the year of acquisition.

Depreciation is allowable as a deduction even if the expenditure for acquiring the capital asset was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. This does not constitute a double benefit.

Fiscal statutes must be construed strictly and literally. When the language is plain and unambiguous, courts must give effect to it without considering legislative intent or equitable considerations.

An educational institution that generates a surplus does not automatically lose its charitable status or cease to exist solely for educational purposes. This is true if the surplus is reinvested for its educational objectives, and the predominant object test determines if the institution's primary aim is education or profit.

Tax laws must be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice, even though equitable considerations are generally irrelevant in their interpretation.