TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1082
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Return. 3. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 4,02,331/- u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act even when the Ld. AO lacked powers to make such addition in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(1). 4. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in setting aside to the file of the Ld. AO the issue of addition of Rs. 9,29,904/- made by the Ld. AO u/s. 36(1)(va) even when such addition in itself deserved to be deleted and at the same time the Worthy CIT(A) lacked powers to set aside the issue to the file of Ld. AO as per the amendment to S. 250(1) by the Finance Act, 2001. 5. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in setting aside to the file of the Ld. AO the issue of addition of Rs. 10,90,306/- made by the Ld. AO u/s. 36(1)(ii) even when such addition in itself deserved to be deleted and at the same time the Worthy CIT(A) lacked powers to set aside the issue to the file of Ld. AO as per the amendment to S. 250(1) by the Finance Act, 2001. 6. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Surya Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Dharamshala, ITA No. 255/CHD/2011 dated 02.11.2021 in the case of CZAR Faucets Limited in ITA No. 255/CHD/2021 order dated 01.11.2021. In the facts of the present case also, it is seen that the amendments carried out by the Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and 43B were considered by the First Appellate Authority to be clarificatory in nature, hence, retrospective in operation. We have seen that this issue has been considered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H). The jurisdictional High Court relying upon its own decision in the case of CIT Vs Rai Agro Industries 334 ITR 122 and considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (S.C) have addressed the legal position, though it need be clarified that the decision rendered was in the context of amendments carried out by way of Second Proviso to Section 43B which was omitted by Finance Act, 2003. This Amendment was held to be clarificatory and hence would operate retrospectively. In the facts of the present case, Amendment by way of Explanation 2 to Section 36(va)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hes vide its order dated 01.07.2021 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. 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. Theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt case, we referred to the "Notes on clauses" at the time of introduction 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eative Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd., Baddi in ITA No. 252/CHD/2021. 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 variou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court in the case of CIT vs Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327 has been relied upon. The said decision, it is seen, specifically deals with the employees' contribution. Their Lordships relying upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (which was in the context of employers' contribution) referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 took specific cognizance of the fact that this decision pertained to the employee's contribution wherein again a reference had been made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Vinay Cement 313 ITR 1. Considering the reasoning in these decisions, Their Lordships in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) consciously followed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Aimil's case and concluded that the view expressed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs Commonwealth Trust Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 290 was not being followed as it was considered to be "no longer good law in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in Alom Extrusions Ltd." Accordingly, reliance placed by the ld. AR ....