Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The delayed deposit of employees' share of contributions towards ESIC and EPF by the assessee beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Acts would constitute income of the assessee by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act. The Apex Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case observed this position. The non-obstante clause in Section 43B does not dilute or override the employer's obligation to deposit the amounts deducted from employees' income on or before the due date. The deduction is allowed only if the deposits are made before filing the return, but this cannot apply to amounts held in trust, such as employees' contributions, which are not part of the assessee employer's income. These amounts have to be deposited as per the welfare enactments on or before the due dates mandated by the concerned law for claiming deduction. The Assessing Officer/CPC was justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for deduction of delayed deposit of employees' share through an intimation u/s 143(1)(a) prior to the Checkmate Services judgment.
The delayed deposit of employees' share of contributions towards ESIC and EPF by the assessee beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Acts would constitute income of the assessee by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act. The Apex Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case observed this position. The non-obstante clause in Section 43B does not dilute or override the employer's obligation to deposit the amounts deducted from employees' income on or before the due date. The deduction is allowed only if the deposits are made before filing the return, but this cannot apply to amounts held in trust, such as employees' contributions, which are not part of the assessee employer's income. These amounts have to be deposited as per the welfare enactments on or before the due dates mandated by the concerned law for claiming deduction. The Assessing Officer/CPC was justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for deduction of delayed deposit of employees' share through an intimation u/s 143(1)(a) prior to the Checkmate Services judgment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
