Amalgamation and statutory deduction claims required verification of revised computations, tax credit apportionment, and actual payment evidence.

Amalgamation required the revised computation for the pre-amalgamation period to be considered and the advance tax credit to be apportioned between the amalgamating and successor entities, so the matter was sent back for verification and recomputation. Employees' provident fund contribution was claimed to have been debited from the bank account before the due date, with delayed portal credit caused by technical issues, so the disallowance was remitted for factual verification and allowance if payment was timely. Claims under section 43B for leave encashment, gratuity, labour welfare fund and pension also required verification of actual payment or eligible transfer entries, and were directed to be examined afresh.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, consequent to amalgamation, the amended return and revised computation of income for the pre-amalgamation period were required to be considered and the advance tax credit apportioned between the successor and amalgamating entities; (ii) whether disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was sustainable in respect of employees' contribution to provident fund where remittance was debited from the bank account before the due date but credited later due to portal-related technical issues; (iii) whether the disallowance under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of leave encashment, gratuity, labour welfare fund and pension required verification and allowance where the liability was claimed on payment basis or arose from inter-group balance sheet transfers.

Issue (i): Whether, consequent to amalgamation, the amended return and revised computation of income for the pre-amalgamation period were required to be considered and the advance tax credit apportioned between the successor and amalgamating entities.

Analysis: The amalgamation had an appointed date falling within the relevant year, and the successor entity had filed the ITR-A in accordance with the statutory framework. The material placed showed that the revised computation reflected income relatable to the pre-amalgamation period, while the earlier computation did not capture the post-amalgamation position. The assessment was also required to reflect the correct allocation of tax payments attributable to the two entities, including advance tax credits.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to consider the revised computation and to apportion or transfer the advance tax credit in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was sustainable in respect of employees' contribution to provident fund where remittance was debited from the bank account before the due date but credited later due to portal-related technical issues.

Analysis: The evidence placed before the Tribunal showed that the statutory amounts had been paid from the assessee's bank account within the due date, while the delay in crediting to the provident fund account arose from technical glitches on the portal. The relevant challans and bank statements were produced, and the issue turned on verification of the actual remittance timeline rather than mere book entry timing. In such circumstances, the disallowance could not be sustained without verification of the factual payment position.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify the payments and allow the expenditure.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of leave encashment, gratuity, labour welfare fund and pension required verification and allowance where the liability was claimed on payment basis or arose from inter-group balance sheet transfers.

Analysis: The assessee relied on payment evidence and on the position that certain amounts represented inter-company transfers or payments made before the return-filing due date but after tax audit reporting. The Tribunal treated the discrepancy between the tax audit report and the return computation as a matter requiring factual verification by the Assessing Officer rather than outright rejection of the claim. The governing consideration was whether the statutory payments had actually been made and whether the amounts were otherwise eligible for deduction on the basis claimed.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the expenses in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The common result was relief to the assessees, with the disputed additions and disallowances not sustained as made and the matters requiring verification being sent back for fresh examination.

---