Case Law Details
Apcer Life Sciences India Limited Vs Assessing Officer (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as present case doesn’t involve invocation of any of the sections i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D of the Income Tax Act.
Facts- The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of pharma co-vigilance services and monitoring the effect of drug, medical review of lab and ECG data, global medical writing, etc. Vide the present appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs.40,91,032/- which is the delayed deposits towards PF & ESI u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act on the ground that the said provision was prospective in nature and applicable to A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee has also challenged the disallowance of Rs.35,80,210/- u/s. 115BBE of the Act.
Conclusion- The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) held that the delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESI, if the same was paid after the due date specified under the relevant act inspite of the same being paid before the due date of filing of the returns u/s. 39(1) of the Act. Hence, we find no merit in the submission of the ld. AR in this regard.
Held that section 115BBE of the Act applies only when section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D of the Act are invoked. The present case in hand does not come under the mandate of section 115BBE of the Act and, hence, we find merit in the submission made by the ld. AR on this issue. We, therefore, direct the A.O. to delete the impugned addition made u/s. 115BBE of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
