TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1076
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Bengaluru Karnataka passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total Income of Rs. 1,62,71,810/- as against the returned income a sum of Rs. 1,55,30,140/- under the facts and circumstance of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of Rs. 7,41,676/- under section 36(1)(va) on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act is incorrect, inter alia, on the Quantum, Period, Rate and method on which it has been calculated. 10. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 12. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed for the advancement of substantial cause of justice and equity." 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to deduction u/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the same is paid prior to due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. It was further held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that an identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated 21.10.2021). 6. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On identical fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provisions u/s 36[1][va] of the I.T.Act?" 7.1 In deciding the above substantial question of law, the Hon'ble High Court rendered the following findings:- "20. Paragraph-38 of the PF Scheme provides for Mode of payment of contributions. As provided in sub para (1), the employer shall, before paying the member, his wages, deduct his contribution from his wages and deposit the same together with his own contribution and other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee would have been entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI, if the payment was made prior to due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the I.T.Act, alter....