TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee was laid up and was under medical treatment on account of Sciatica from 10/10/2018 to 20/12/2018. After recovering from the illness, the assessee tried to contact his counsel at Ernakulam, but he was informed that on account of Christmas holidays, he was available only on 04/01/2019 after reopening of the High Court. Hence, the appeal was prepared on 09/01/2019 and filed on 10/01/2019. Thus, there was delay of 79 days in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the delay was not deliberate and was beyond the control of the assessee. Hence, it was prayed that the Tribunal may condone delay of 79 days in filing the appeal and the appeal may be disposed of on merits. The Ld. AR has also filed medical certificate dated 20/12/2018 fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount received from employees and remitted to the Government is not claimed as a deduction from the gross income and therefore there is no violation of Section 36 (VA) ought to have been considered by the authorities below. F: The remittance of the PF amount before the dues date of filing of return is an allowable deduction under Section 43B is not considered by the authorities below. It is only those amounts not paid by the due date of filing of return under the IT Act that are to be added to the income return. G: The issue at hand had been already decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 84 Taxman.com 185 in favour o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 8,07,972 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Before the CIT(A), the assessee relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Rajasthan Beverages Corporation Ltd. (250 taxman 32) wherein it was held as under: "Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed only on actual payment (PF and ESI contribution) - Whether amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va). - Held, yes in favour of assessee." The assessee also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP in the case of Rajasthan Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mine: "could not operate as a confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to be appealed against........". Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 245 ITR 360/113 Taxman 470, in which their Lordships have held that an order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of order under challenge. In the hue of the above discussion, it is amply vivid that the mere dismissal of SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon J&K High Court in the case of Jammu Development Authority cannot be construed as having the effect of elocution of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject against the assessee." 5.2 In the light ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as under: "Held, dismissing the appeal, the employees' contribution was covered by clause (va) of section 36(1) and the deduction was restricted by the Explanation below it. If the employer's contribution under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for the financial year 2007-08 was paid after the year but before the date of filing of the return for that year, it was allowable as a deduction in the assessment year, dehors the fact that it was paid in the subsequent year. Since the employees' contribution was collected from the employees as a deduction in their salary itself it would in effect be income of the assesses, as had been indicated in....