TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The issue involved in the instant appeals relates to the deposit of employees' contributions qua ESI, PF and Labour Welfare Fund after the due date as prescribed in the relevant Acts, however, before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, resulting into following disallowances by the Assessing Officer. AY ESI Contribution PF Contribution Labour Welfare contributions 2018-19 Rs. 91,85,979/- 8,45,841/- 1,61,700/ AY ESI Contribution PF Contribution Labour Welfare contributions 2019-20 Rs. 30,28,292 3,83,269 1,46,870 3. Against the above disallowances, the Assessee preferred first appeals before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order, partly sustain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he judgments relied upon by the Assessee as observed in its order at para no. 5.3 to the effect "however the case law quoted by the Appellant and some other Courts have applied the provision of Section 43B on employee contribution as well and held that if such payment(Employees' contribution) is made before the due date of filling of Return of Income, no disallowance should be made u/s 36 of the Act", howeverdeclined the claim of the Assessee while relying upon judgments rendered against the contention raised by the Assessee, by Hon'ble High Courts in the case ofGujrat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. {Tax Appeal no. 637 of 2013 reported in [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100(Gujrat) , CIT VsMerchem Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 443(Kerala) and Unifac Man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to employees' contribution deposited before the due date of filing of return, in respect of Provident Fund and ESI made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Again Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs., Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., vide ITA.No.983/2018 order dated 10.09.2018 while following the decision in the case of CIT Versus AIMIL Ltd., (supra), has held that legislative intent was/is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as expenditure only when payment is actually made. It was further held that it was not the legislative intent and objective to treat belated payment of Employees' Provident Fund & Employees' State Insurance Scheme as deemed income of the employe....