<?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>2022 (4) TMI 1676 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465345</link>
    <description>Employees&#039; contribution to PF/ESI was disallowed for alleged delay under the welfare statutes. Applying the principle that such contributions are deductible when deposited before the due date for filing the return under s. 139(1), the Tribunal directed the Revenue to allow the deduction as claimed; however, liberty was reserved to seek rectification if deposits are later found to be beyond the s. 139(1) due date. Separately, deduction in respect of a gratuity provision was contested on the basis that it was erroneously reported in the tax audit report. Holding that the record indicated a possible inadvertent reporting error, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for verification and decision in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:02:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 1676 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465345</link>
      <description>Employees&#039; contribution to PF/ESI was disallowed for alleged delay under the welfare statutes. Applying the principle that such contributions are deductible when deposited before the due date for filing the return under s. 139(1), the Tribunal directed the Revenue to allow the deduction as claimed; however, liberty was reserved to seek rectification if deposits are later found to be beyond the s. 139(1) due date. Separately, deduction in respect of a gratuity provision was contested on the basis that it was erroneously reported in the tax audit report. Holding that the record indicated a possible inadvertent reporting error, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for verification and decision in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>