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

....l 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 claiming deduction of Rs. 2,39,822/-, being amount paid towards em....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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, therefore, see no legally sustainable merit in the case of the assessee and, respectfull....