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 allows deductions for delayed PF and ESIC deposits, emphasizing legislative intent and judicial precedents.</h1> <h3>DCIT, Circle-10 (1) New Delhi Versus G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing deductions for delayed deposits of employee's contributions towards PF and ESIC. The decision emphasized ... Delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC - HELD THAT:- This is not disallowable as the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B effected by Finance Act, 2021 were applicable prospectively in relation to Assessment Year 2021-22 and subsequent years. Therefore, the claim of deduction of contribution to Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) and Provident Fund u/s. 36(1)(va) could not be denied to the assessee in Assessment Year 2018-19 in question on the basis of amendments made by Finance Act, 2021. For this proposition, we find support from the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of The Continental Restaurant and Café Company vs. ITO [2021 (10) TMI 843 - ITAT BANGALORE] and Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. [2021 (12) TMI 558 - ITAT CHENNAI] Consequently, we see no error in the order of the CIT(A) and therefore decline to interfere. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Issues involved:Challenge of reversal of disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) r.w. Section 2(24)(x) concerning delayed deposit of employee's contribution towards PF and ESIC.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Reversal of DisallowanceThe Revenue challenged the reversal of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) r.w. Section 2(24)(x) concerning delayed deposit of employee's contribution towards PF and ESIC. The CIT(A) reversed the action of the Assessing Officer in its appellate order. The key contention was whether the employee's contribution to PF and ESI, deposited after the due dates prescribed in the respective Acts but before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, should be allowed as a deduction under section 43B.Issue 2: Interpretation of Relevant ProvisionsThe Assessing Officer relied on Section 36(1)(va) to disallow the amounts of employee's contributions where the deposit was made after the due dates under the respective Acts. The appellant contended that after the deletion of the second proviso to section 43B, such payments should be allowed if made before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The interpretation of section 36(1)(va) and section 43B was crucial in determining the allowability of the deductions for delayed deposits of employee's contributions.Issue 3: Judicial PrecedentsThe appellant cited judicial pronouncements, including the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgments, to support their claim that delayed payments of employee's contributions should be allowed as deductions under section 43B. The decisions highlighted the legislative intent behind the provisions and emphasized the importance of actual payment for expenditure allowance.Issue 4: Applicability of AmendmentsThe appellant argued that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, were applicable prospectively and should not affect the deduction claim for the Assessment Year in question. The Tribunal supported this argument, citing relevant case laws to uphold the CIT(A)'s order and dismiss the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing the legislative intent, judicial precedents, and the prospective applicability of amendments in allowing deductions for delayed deposits of employee's contributions towards PF and ESIC.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
