https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263892 The HC held that the assessee is not entitled to claim a deduction under Sec. 36(1)(va) read with Sec. 2(24)(x) for employee contributions to PF and ESI if these amounts are not credited to the respective funds by the prescribed due date. The court rejected the ITAT's deletion of the addition, affirming that the legislative intent clearly distinguishes between employer and employee contributions, requiring timely payment of employee contributions to prevent unjust enrichment. The HC aligned with the Gujarat HC ruling, emphasizing that no amendment has altered Sec. 36(1)(va) or its explanation regarding employee contributions. Consequently, the assessee's claim for deduction was disallowed, and the decision was rendered in favor of the revenue. en-us Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jul 2025 11:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263892 The HC held that the assessee is not entitled to claim a deduction under Sec. 36(1)(va) read with Sec. 2(24)(x) for employee contributions to PF and ESI if these amounts are not credited to the respective funds by the prescribed due date. The court rejected the ITAT's deletion of the addition, affirming that the legislative intent clearly distinguishes between employer and employee contributions, requiring timely payment of employee contributions to prevent unjust enrichment. The HC aligned with the Gujarat HC ruling, emphasizing that no amendment has altered Sec. 36(1)(va) or its explanation regarding employee contributions. Consequently, the assessee's claim for deduction was disallowed, and the decision was rendered in favor of the revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263892