https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17607 Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act were analysed as a coordinated scheme for strict compliance with welfare-law remittances, treating employees' contributions received by the employer as income and allowing deduction only when credited to the relevant fund within the prescribed due date. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the distinction between these provisions and other statutory liabilities rests on an intelligible differentia, namely the employer's special control over employees' deductions and the need for prompt remittance, and that this classification has a rational nexus with the object of protecting provident fund and employees' state insurance benefits. The challenge under Article 14 and the argument based on double jeopardy were rejected, and the provisions were upheld as constitutionally valid. en-us Fri, 27 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17607 Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act were analysed as a coordinated scheme for strict compliance with welfare-law remittances, treating employees' contributions received by the employer as income and allowing deduction only when credited to the relevant fund within the prescribed due date. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the distinction between these provisions and other statutory liabilities rests on an intelligible differentia, namely the employer's special control over employees' deductions and the need for prompt remittance, and that this classification has a rational nexus with the object of protecting provident fund and employees' state insurance benefits. The challenge under Article 14 and the argument based on double jeopardy were rejected, and the provisions were upheld as constitutionally valid. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17607