<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (8) TMI 807 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384618</link>
    <description>Employees&#039; contributions to provident fund and ESI are deductible only when credited to the relevant fund on or before the statutory due date under section 36(1)(va), read with section 2(24)(x), and the time limit is to be applied with reference to the month in which wages are payable and the deduction liability arises. On that reading, deposits made after the prescribed date did not qualify for deduction. The challenge that an earlier coordinate Bench view was per incuriam was rejected because that view was treated as consistent with the governing legal position and no contrary binding principle was shown. The claimed deduction was therefore disallowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=583985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 807 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384618</link>
      <description>Employees&#039; contributions to provident fund and ESI are deductible only when credited to the relevant fund on or before the statutory due date under section 36(1)(va), read with section 2(24)(x), and the time limit is to be applied with reference to the month in which wages are payable and the deduction liability arises. On that reading, deposits made after the prescribed date did not qualify for deduction. The challenge that an earlier coordinate Bench view was per incuriam was rejected because that view was treated as consistent with the governing legal position and no contrary binding principle was shown. The claimed deduction was therefore disallowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384618</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>