Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2020 (3) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... following questions are proposed as substantial questions of law, for consideration of this Court: "(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance under Section 36(a)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, paid by the Appellate towards employees contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance? (ii) Whether the due date for payment of contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Scheme is to be considered from 15 days from the close of every month in which the wages are disbursed or 15 days from the date from which the wages of the employees becomes due? 3. The appellant-assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 cla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Hon'ble Supreme Court does not dilute binding nature of this judicial precedent. As regard dismissal of SLP in the case of Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 185 (SC), it is only elementary that when a SLP is dismissed by a non-speaking order, it does not constitute a law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court, and as such, it is not binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The authority, for this proposition, is contained in a series of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, including inter alia, in the cases of State of Manipur vs. Thingujam Brojen Meetai, (1996) 9 SCC 29, Om Prakash Gargi v. State of Punjab, (1996) 11 SCC 399 and Sun Export Corpn v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1997 SC 2658. We, there....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....further required that he shall within fifteen days of the close of every month pay the same to the fund such contribution and administrative charges. In terms of this provision thus, after deducting the employee's contribution towards the funds, the same has to be deposited with the Government within fifteen days of the close of every month. Reference to fifteen days of the close of the month must be in relation to the month during which the payment of wages is to be made and corresponding liability to deduct employee's contribution to the fund arises. The expression "within fifteen days of the close of every month" therefore must be interpreted as having reference to the close of the month, for which, the wages are required to be paid with....