TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 7,17,33,181 as against the returned income of Rs. 6,89,47,493 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3(a) The action of the authorities below in disallowing the employees contribution towards Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 27,85,688 is bad in law. (b) The authorities below erred in making the disallowance on account of employees' contribution to PF & ESI without considering the fact that they were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act under the facts of the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid the employees' contribution to PF and ESI prior to the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessee is entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI having regard to the provisions of section 43B of the I.T.Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.). The CIT(A), however, rejected the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) noticed the difference between employer and employee contribution to PF and ESI and held that only employers contribution to PF and ESI is entitled to deduction u/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the same is paid prior to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whethe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that as his income, deserves to be rejected. 22. With respect, we find it difficult to endorse the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. WE agree with the view taken by this Court in W.A.No.4077/2013. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the substantial question of law framed by us is answered in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Lim....