Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal's earlier orders allowing deduction under section 36(1)(va) for employees' share of EPF/ESI deposited after the statutory time limit but before the due date for filing return under section 139(1) require rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The Tribunal had allowed deduction on the basis that the employees' share was deposited before the due date for filing return under section 139(1). Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. clarified that deduction under section 36(1)(va) is permissible only if the deposit is made within the time limit prescribed by the respective statutes and not merely before the due date under section 139(1). A later binding decision of the Supreme Court alters the legal position and operates retrospectively. Where a subsequent binding judgment changes the legal position, earlier orders contrary to that law are rendered erroneous and amenable to rectification as a mistake apparent from the record.
Conclusion: The subsequent Supreme Court decision requires rectification of the Tribunal's impugned orders; the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are allowed and the benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(va) is not available unless the employees' share was deposited within the statutory time limit prescribed by the respective enactments.