TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
In this order honourable Supreme Court has discussed in detail judgments of several High Courts and found that different views have been taken by High Courts, hence issued notice for hearing the matter.
It is worth to mention that in the corresponding judgment of Delhi High Court, reported as 2025 (9) TMI 854 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 49 (1), New Delhi
The Delhi High Court has considered that law is laid down in The judgment of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] in effect had conclusively interpreted the provision of Section 43B of the Act and in view of ruling therein the appeal of assessee was dismissed, hence the assessee filed SLP before the Supreme Court.
However, Honourable Supreme Court in 2026 (1) TMI 1425 - SC Order has not mentioned this judgment hence issued notice,although judgments of several High Courts are mentioned but judgment in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] has not been mentioned and has not been considered. If it was considered then, as per limited knowledge of author the honourable SC Bench could either decide the case as per ruling in Checkmate services (supra.) or
Could have placed the matter before honourable Chief Justice of India (CJI) for consideration of the matter by larger constitutional bench of the Supreme Court for reconsider of judgment in Checkmates's case.
More assistance / support is required for their lordships:
Information like case history and related cases on the matter is an important aspect, that should be compiled and placed before their lordships of the Supreme Court. However, in this case it appears that in such compilation / preparation the judgment in case of Checkmate was not highlighted to convey that the matter is covered by Checkmate case.
This is likely to cause sheer wastage of time of their lordships of the Supreme Court.
However, now at the time of hearing counsels of assessee can raise all related aspects like, strict interpretation of S.2.24.x, 36.1.va is required to highlight exact words used there in about 'any sum receive' - this should not include book entry for deduction,
And word used ' credited ' should not be read as 'deposited' on strict interpretation only sum actually received from employees can be considered as income u.s. 2.24.x.
And if such sum is credited in liability towards Employees contribution, before due date than it should be allowed because the requirement is compiled with when a credit entry is made.
The law that view which commended to majority of High Court is preferable to be followed by the Supreme Court,as held in P.J.Chemical Ltd SC need to be applied and accordingly as per majority of views expressed by high Courts, the amount can be allowed if actually paid before the 'due date ' prescribed in S.139.1.
In this regard in several articles written by author and available on this website, different reasons and aspects are discussed in detail for need of reconsideration of judgment in case of Checkmate (supra.)
Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited and their counsels have now golden opportunity to place all such aspects and contentions before the Supreme Court.
Author hopes the Supreme Court may allow appeal of assessee or can place the matter before the CJI for constitution of larger / constitutional bench to reconsider the judgment in case of Checkmate.
Let us hope that the Supreme Court will not, at this stage, out rightly dismiss appeal by following Checkmates case.