Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Supreme Court examined the tax treatment of amounts recovered by an employer from employees as provident or ESI contributions, noting such sums are taxable as income when received. The Court explained that deduction under the employer-deduction provision is available only if the employer credits the employees' contributions to the relevant fund by the 'due date', which the Explanation defines as the date required under the applicable Act, rule, order or notification. The Court identified two conflicting interpretations: one requiring crediting by the statutory fund due date for deduction, and an alternative treating employee and employer contributions alike under the non-obstante clause permitting deduction if deposited by return due date.
Supreme Court examined the tax treatment of amounts recovered by an employer from employees as provident or ESI contributions, noting such sums are taxable as income when received. The Court explained that deduction under the employer-deduction provision is available only if the employer credits the employees' contributions to the relevant fund by the 'due date', which the Explanation defines as the date required under the applicable Act, rule, order or notification. The Court identified two conflicting interpretations: one requiring crediting by the statutory fund due date for deduction, and an alternative treating employee and employer contributions alike under the non-obstante clause permitting deduction if deposited by return due date.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.