<?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>2024 (8) TMI 1657 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465302</link>
    <description>ITAT Jaipur, on a Misc. Application u/s 254(2) by the Revenue, recalled its earlier order in an appeal concerning disallowance of delayed deposit of employees&#039; contribution to PF/ESI. The Tribunal held that the later decision of the SC in Checkmate Services (LB) governs the issue, clarifying that employees&#039; contributions constitute income u/s 2(24)(x) and are deductible u/s 36(1)(va) only if deposited within the statutory due dates under the respective enactments. As this binding precedent was not cited at the time of original hearing, the ITAT treated it as a mistake apparent from record, allowed the Misc. Application, and directed the appeal to be heard afresh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2025 10:03:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1657 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465302</link>
      <description>ITAT Jaipur, on a Misc. Application u/s 254(2) by the Revenue, recalled its earlier order in an appeal concerning disallowance of delayed deposit of employees&#039; contribution to PF/ESI. The Tribunal held that the later decision of the SC in Checkmate Services (LB) governs the issue, clarifying that employees&#039; contributions constitute income u/s 2(24)(x) and are deductible u/s 36(1)(va) only if deposited within the statutory due dates under the respective enactments. As this binding precedent was not cited at the time of original hearing, the ITAT treated it as a mistake apparent from record, allowed the Misc. Application, and directed the appeal to be heard afresh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>