| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0591 (Jp-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 36(1)(va)
The contributions have been deposited before filing the return of income. Therefore, following the decision of High Court in case of CIT v. JVVNL ((2014) 98 DTR 105 (Jp) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1578 (Jp-Trib)), the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
|
Business deduction under section 36(1)(va) - Allowability ` - Late payment of employee's contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) -
Assessee had deducted PF contribution from its employees, but the same was not deposited in the Government account within the due date prescribed. AO with the aid of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) disallowed the claim of assessee. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. Held: The contributions have been deposited before filing the return of income. Therefore, following the decision of High Court in case of CIT v. JVVNL ((2014) 98 DTR 105 (Jp) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1578 (Jp-Trib)), the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
REFERRED : Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 733 (SC) : (1998) 98 Taxman 151 (SC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 1231 (SC) CIT v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (2014) 98 DTR 105 (Jp) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1578 (Jp-Trib) CIT & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 102 (Karn) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 0964 (Karn-HC)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 37(1)
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|