https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=11777 The author urges reconsideration of Checkmate paragraph 45 on employees' contributions, arguing Alom Extrusions expressly treated employees' contributions, the definition in Section 2(24)(x), and the provisos and Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) concerning payment timing. Noting that tribunals and a majority of High Courts favoured the assessee view and invoking PJ Chemicals on preference for the better reasoned majority of High Courts, the author contends Checkmate failed to apply those precedents and statutory provisions and calls for re examination of deductibility rules for employee contributions. en-us Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:08:54 +0530 Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:08:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=11777 The author urges reconsideration of Checkmate paragraph 45 on employees' contributions, arguing Alom Extrusions expressly treated employees' contributions, the definition in Section 2(24)(x), and the provisos and Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) concerning payment timing. Noting that tribunals and a majority of High Courts favoured the assessee view and invoking PJ Chemicals on preference for the better reasoned majority of High Courts, the author contends Checkmate failed to apply those precedents and statutory provisions and calls for re examination of deductibility rules for employee contributions. Articles Income Tax Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:08:54 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=11777