https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365047 The Court concluded that the deletion of disallowance under Section 36(1)(Va) regarding Employees' Contributions to ESIC paid beyond due dates did not raise any substantial question of law. It emphasized the need for the Revenue to maintain consistency in its approach and adhere to previous Court decisions to prevent contradictory outcomes. The Court also addressed the inappropriate conduct of the Revenue's Advocate, emphasizing the importance of accurate representation and communication. The judgment highlighted the significance of adherence to previous decisions, consistency in legal views, and professional conduct by legal representatives. en-us Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Aug 2018 07:29:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365047 The Court concluded that the deletion of disallowance under Section 36(1)(Va) regarding Employees' Contributions to ESIC paid beyond due dates did not raise any substantial question of law. It emphasized the need for the Revenue to maintain consistency in its approach and adhere to previous Court decisions to prevent contradictory outcomes. The Court also addressed the inappropriate conduct of the Revenue's Advocate, emphasizing the importance of accurate representation and communication. The judgment highlighted the significance of adherence to previous decisions, consistency in legal views, and professional conduct by legal representatives. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365047