TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessee's Appeal Allowed for Clarification on 'Every Month' Interpretation</h1> <h3>The Master Polishers Versus Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore</h3> The Master Polishers Versus Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore - TMI Issues:The judgment involves issues related to the addition made by CPC Bangalore, employee's contribution to ESI/PF, and the interpretation of the term 'every month' in the context of Provident Fund scheme.Addition made by CPC Bangalore:The appeal was against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by CPC Bangalore. The assessee contended that the addition should have been deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of employee's contribution to ESI/PF based on a Supreme Court precedent. The assessee argued that the contributions were deposited as per the due date prescribed under the relevant Act.Employee's Contribution to ESI/PF:The dispute revolved around the due date for depositing employee's contribution to PF/ESI. The assessee argued that the due date should be within 15 days from the close of the month in which payment was made to the employee. The Revenue contended that the contribution should be deposited within 15 days from the close of the month for which salary/wages were due. The Tribunal referred to a Calcutta Tribunal decision for interpretation and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the term 'every month' from the relevant authorities.Interpretation of 'Every Month' in Provident Fund Scheme:The Tribunal considered the term 'every month' specified in the Provident Fund scheme and directed the Assessing Officer to seek clarification from the relevant PF and ESI authorities regarding the interpretation of this term. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for further examination, with the assessee to be given an opportunity to be heard. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.Conclusion:The appeal by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was referred back to the Assessing Officer for clarification on the interpretation of the term 'every month' in the Provident Fund scheme. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 26/04/2023.
TaxTMI 