TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 1022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the binding decision of jurisdictional Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs Nipso Polyfabrika Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327 (supra) without giving any bonafide reasons, so impugned CIT(A) order, passed without following jurisdictional High Court, is illegal and void in the eyes of law. 2. The ld. AR Mr. Chetan Sharma appearing on behalf of the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that the point at issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the various orders of the ITAT including the Chandigarh Benches on this issue. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court sited in Ground No. 2 which since the assessee was in Dharamshala, was the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. 3. The ld. Sr.DR Mr. Ashok Khanna considering the record relied upon the impugned order. No distinguishing facts, circumstances or position of law was canvassed in support of the impugned order. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that there was a delay in the payment of EPF rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... (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 Id AO as well as the Id CIT(A) disallowed the same holding that such contribution becomes the income of the assessee under the provision of section 2(24)(x) of the Act and thereafter if the same is deposit within the due date prescribed under the respective laws then same is allowable as deduction u/s 36(l)(va) of the Act. Coordinate bench in case of DOT Vs Dee Development Engineers in ITA No. 4959/DEL/2016 ( A.Y 2011-12) has held as Under:- 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. As regards Ground No. 1, the assessee company has not deposited the employees' contribution within t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date" under the said clause. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2021. And will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2021-2022 and subsequent assessment years." Therefore it is apparent that the above amendment do not apply to the assessment year 2014 - 15 in this appeal. 8. In view of this we allow the solitary ground of appeal raised by the assessee holding that the addition/disallowance made by the learned assessing officer of late deposit of employees co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 case of Shri Sukhdev Singh, Mohali and ITA 255/CHD/2021 in the case of M/s CZAR FAUCETS Ltd. Chandigarh wherein consistently following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nuchem Ltd (ITA No. 323 of 2009) and CIT Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd.(2014) 366 ITR 167, the Tribunal has consistently allowed similar claims of the assessee holding that the Amendments effected by the Finance Act 2021 to section 36(l)(va) and u/s 43B of the income Tax Act are not clarificatory in nature and they do not have retrospective effect and are applicable prospectively. Rea....