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>Tribunal: Amendment not retroactive; disallowance deleted; deduction allowed for ESI & PF contributions.</h1> <h3>M/s. Environs Management (Bangalore) Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax CPC Bangalore</h3> M/s. Environs Management (Bangalore) Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax CPC Bangalore - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality and correctness of the addition made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Applicability of the amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by Finance Act, 2021.3. Levy of interest under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Correctness of the Addition under Section 36(1)(va):The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 3,23,886 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for late remittance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance (ESI). The assessee argued that the contributions were paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act, thus qualifying for deduction under Section 43B. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, citing judicial pronouncements favoring the Revenue and considering the amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by Finance Act, 2021, as retrospective.2. Applicability of the Amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by Finance Act, 2021:The Tribunal examined whether the amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and retrospective. The Tribunal referred to the Bangalore Bench's decision in M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DCIT, which held that the amendment is not clarificatory and is prospective. The Tribunal noted the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, which allowed the deduction of employees' contributions paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1). The Tribunal also cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in M.M. Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT, which stated that retrospective provisions in taxing acts cannot be presumed to be retrospective if they alter the law as it stood earlier.3. Levy of Interest under Section 234C:The assessee contested the levy of Rs. 13,707 as interest under Section 234C. However, the Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the main issue of the addition under Section 36(1)(va) and did not provide a detailed analysis of the interest levy.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2018-2019. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs. 3,23,886 was deleted, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the deduction for employees' contributions to ESI and PF, as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1). The judgment emphasized the prospective nature of the amendment and the applicability of the existing legal framework for the relevant assessment year.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
