TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....F and ESI. The amount of contribution has been deposited well before the filing of return of income." 3. The ld. AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that the point at issue is fully covered in assessee's favour by virtue of various orders of the Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT. 4. The ld. Sr. DR on the other hand though relied upon the impugned order, however, did not refer to any contrary view in support thereof. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the facts of the present case, admittedly the employees' contribution towards the PF and ESI was deposited after the due date specified under the respective Acts of PF and ESI. Cognizance of this fact has been taken of by the CIT(A) in para 7.1 of his order in both the appeals. As per the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) which has been extracted in para 7.2 in both the appeals, the consistent claim of the assessee has remained that the Employee's deposit was with a marginal delay but it has been deposited well before the due date of filing of the Return of Income. However, the First Appellate Authority considering the legal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA 83/CHD/2021 and order dated 04.10.2021 in the case of Ajay Piplani Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru in ITA No. 114/CHD/2021. Similar view has been expressed by the Delhi Benches vide order dated 03.08.2021 in Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT, New Delhi in ITA No. 6941/Del/2017, Hyderabad Benches vide order dated 01.07.2021 in M/s. Crescent Roadways Pvt. Ltd. V Dy. CIT, Hyderabad in ITA No. 1952/Hyd./2018. We find that the issue has been elaborately discussed by the Co-ordinate Benches for example in Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as under : 6. We have carefully considered contentions of the learned departmental representative and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The facts shows that the assessee has collected the sum of Rs. 12,16,260/- being employee's contribution under the provident fund and with respect to ESI laws. The above contribution was admittedly not deposited by the assessee within the due date prescribed under the respective ESI and PF statue however, same was deposited before the due date of filing of return of income. Therefore, the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) disallowed the same holding t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of the finance bill 2021 which says as Under:- "Clause 8 of the Bill seeks to amend section 36 of the Income-tax Act, relating to other deductions. Sub-section (1) of the said section provides for allowing of deductions provided for in the clauses thereof for computing the income referred to in section 28 of the said Act. Clause (va) of the said sub-section provides for allowance of deduction for any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date. Explanation to the said clause provides that for the purposes of this clause, "due date" means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit an employee's contribution to the employee's account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule, order or notification issued thereunder or under any standing order, award, contract of service or otherwise. It is proposed to insert Explanation 2 to clause (va) of sub-section (1) of the said section so as to clarify that the provisions of section 43B shall no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The specific reasoning summing up the legal position on similar facts is extracted hereunder from M/s. A.K. Creative Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd.: "5. We have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the issue, it is seen that it is no longer res-integra. The controversy whether the Amendments carried out by the Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and u/s. 43B of the Act were prospective in nature or retrospective, hence clarificatory in nature have been put to rest by consistent orders of the different Benches of the ITAT namely order dated 03.08.2021 in Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT, New Delhi in ITA No. 6941/Del/2017 of the Delhi Benches; order dated 01.07.2021 of Hyderabad Benches in M/s. Crescent Roadways Pvt. Ltd. V Dy. CIT, Hyderabad in ITA No. 1952/Hyd./2018, order dated 27.08.2021 in the case of M/s. Jupiter Aqua Lines Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA 83/CHD/2021 and order dated 04.10.2021 in the case of Ajay Piplani Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru in ITA No. 114/CHD/2021 of the ITAT Chandigarh Benches. Reference may also be made to various other orders of the Chandigarh Benches in ITA 250/CHD/2021 in the ca....