2023 (11) TMI 1337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CIT (A), NFAC, has erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of Ld. ADIT, CPC in making addition of Rs. 1,18,48,520/- while processing the return u/s 143(1) on illegal and untenable grounds. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) ought to have quashed the order u/s 143(1) passed by Ld. ADIT, CPC as the jurisdiction was not validly assumed as per law. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. ADIT, CPC in making aggregate addition of Rs. 1,18,48,520/- on account of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 164/Del/2023 dated 4.07.2023, Fluid Air (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 63 ITD 182 (Bom). 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. 5. In so far as employees contributions towards PF & ESI it is noticed that the issue as to whether the due date under PF/ESI Acts should be as per the calendar month for which the salary is payable or from the month in which the salary is paid to the employee by the employer came up for adjudication in the case of Sentinel Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) and the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO with the following observations:- "9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of emplo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ure which is not in the nature of expenditure prescribed in Sections 30 to 36 of the Act and also not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee. Thus, in view of such mandate of law, the deduction of expenditure under the general clause of Section 37(1) would not extend to expenditure specially covered within the ambit of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Pvt. Ltd. (supra) itself explains this position in Para 32 of the Judgment. Such view also draws support from the observations made in recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Khyati Realtors (P) Ltd. (2022) 141 taxmann.com 461 (SC). The alternate plea is thus without any meri....