{"id":7524,"date":"2014-01-17T09:19:40","date_gmt":"2014-01-17T03:49:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=7524"},"modified":"2014-01-17T09:19:40","modified_gmt":"2014-01-17T03:49:40","slug":"cit-vs-jaipur-vidyut-vitran-nigam-ltd-rajasthan-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-jaipur-vidyut-vitran-nigam-ltd-rajasthan-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (Rajasthan High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1147\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=1147&varname2=rajasthan_43B_PF.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (rajasthan_43B_PF.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nEmployees\u2019 PF\/ ESI Contribution is also covered by s. 43B &#038; allowable as a deduction u\/s 36(1)(va) if paid by the \u201cdue date\u201d for filing ROI<br \/>\n <\/strong>  <\/p>\n<p>In AY 2001-02 etc, the assessee claimed a deduction for payment of (employees\u2019 contribution) to GPF, CPF and ESI u\/s 36(1)(va) read with s. 43B of the I.T. Act. The basis of the claim was that though the amount was not paid on or before the due date under the respective Act, the same was deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the Income-tax returns u\/s 139 of the I.T. Act and, therefore, in view of s. 43B read with s. 36(1)(va), the entire amount was allowable. The AO rejected the claim for deduction though the Tribunal allowed it. On appeal by the department to the High Court HELD dismissing the appeal:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>No substantial question of law arise out of the orders of the ITAT as it is an admitted fact that the entire amount was deposited by the assessee at least on or before the due date of filing of the returns u\/s 139 of the I.T. Act. If the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return u\/s 139 then the amount cannot be disallowed u\/s 43B or u\/s 36(1)(va) of the Act<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"journal2\">See the contrary view in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-gujarat-state-road-transport-corp-gujarat-high-court-employees-pf-esi-contribution-is-not-covered-by-s-43b-is-only-allowable-as-a-deduction-us-361va-if-paid-by-the-du\/\">Gujarat State Road Transport Corp<\/a><\/strong> (Guj). For a listing of all cases see <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/forum\/index.php?topic=1151.msg2604#msg2604\">forum post<\/a>. In <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/pradip-mehta-vs-cit-supreme-court\/\">Pradip J. Mehta<\/a><\/strong> 300 ITR 231 (SC) it was held that the benefit of doubt should <strong><em>invariably<\/em><\/strong> go to the taxpayer. <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong><br \/>\nEmployees\u2019 PF\/ ESI Contribution is also covered by s. 43B &#038; allowable as a deduction u\/s 36(1)(va) if paid by the \u201cdue date\u201d for filing ROI<br \/>\n <\/strong> <\/p>\n<p>No substantial question of law arise out of the orders<br \/>\nof the ITAT as it is an admitted fact that the entire amount was deposited by the assessee at least on or before the due date of filing of the returns u\/s 139 of the I.T. Act. If the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return u\/s 139 then the amount cannot be disallowed u\/s 43B or u\/s 36(1)(va) of the Act<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-jaipur-vidyut-vitran-nigam-ltd-rajasthan-high-court\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7524","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}