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>Employee contributions to PF/ESI deposited late cannot be claimed as deductions under Section 36(1)(va)</h1> <h3>M/s Jai Ambe Agricultural Industries Versus The DCIT, Circle-2 (1), Aayakar Bhawan, MA Marg, Varanasi</h3> M/s Jai Ambe Agricultural Industries Versus The DCIT, Circle-2 (1), Aayakar Bhawan, MA Marg, Varanasi - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of income under Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act and its classification under Section 28.2. Equivalence of the term 'Recovery' with 'deduction or receipt' in EPF and ESI Acts.3. Impact of non-abstante clause in EPF Scheme on the term 'Shall' to 'may.'4. Application of EPF Act and ESI Act provisions regarding interest and penalty for defaults.5. Employer's responsibility for contributions under EPF Scheme and ESI Act.6. Legality of the order in question.Analysis:1. The appeal raised the issue of whether income defined under Section 2(24)(x) falls under Section 28 of the IT Act. The assessee argued that the income should be taxed under 'Income from other sources' rather than 'Profits and gains from business or profession.' The Tribunal rejected this argument, citing the deeming fiction created by Section 2(24)(x) and upheld the addition made for delayed deposit of EPF/ESI contributions.2. The term 'Recovery' in EPF and ESI Acts was debated, with the assessee contending it should not be equated with 'deduction or receipt.' However, the Tribunal upheld the addition made for delayed deposits, emphasizing the employer's responsibility to deposit contributions within the prescribed time.3. The impact of the non-abstante clause in the EPF Scheme modifying 'Shall' to 'may' was discussed. The Tribunal considered this aspect but ultimately dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the strict interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) regarding timely deposits of EPF/ESI contributions.4. The Tribunal examined the provisions of the EPF Act and ESI Act regarding interest and penalty for defaults. Despite the argument of double jeopardy, the Tribunal upheld the addition made for delayed deposits, emphasizing compliance with statutory timelines.5. The issue of the employer's responsibility for contributions under the EPF Scheme and ESI Act was raised. The Tribunal acknowledged this responsibility but upheld the addition for delayed deposits, citing the strict interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) and relevant case law.6. The overall legality of the order was challenged by the assessee. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, relying on the deeming fiction under Section 2(24)(x) and the strict interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) regarding timely deposits of EPF/ESI contributions.This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal arguments, interpretations, and decisions made in the judgment, addressing each issue raised in the appeal.
TaxTMI 