Case Law Details
ACIT Vs VVDN Technologies Pvt Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi restored the issue to the file of AO with the direction to find out from the relevant PF authorities and ESI authorities about the term ‘every month’ as mentioned in clause 38 of the employees provident fund scheme.
Facts- The revenue has preferred the present appeal contesting that CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,85,73,689/- without appreciating the legal position that expenditure on account of employees contribution to PF and ESIC is not covered u/s 43B of IT Act, but is covered u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) whereby such expenditure is allowable only if the said amounts are paid within the due date under the relevant Act and not allowable even if paid before the due date for filing of return of income.
Conclusion- Mumbai Tribunal in the case of the Master Polishers Vs. ACIT directed that it will be appropriate if the term every month’ specified in Provident Fund scheme, whether it is the month for which salary/wages are due or month of the payment is referred to Relevant Authorities for finding out with reference to any judicial precedent in respect of provisions of the relevant Act. Accordingly, we restored this issue back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer with the direction to find out from the relevant PF authorities about the term every month’ as mentioned in clause 38 of the employees provident fund scheme. Similarly, he may find out from the ESI Authorities.
Held that based on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal the matter is restored the issue to the file Assessing Officer to decide the issue keeping in view the directions by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of The Master Polishers Vs. ACIT.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
