Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2297 2004 SLD 2297 (2004) 267 ITR 505
Calcutta High Court
IT REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 1998 SEPTEMBER 4, 2002
AJAY NATH RAY AND MS. INDIRA BANEJREE, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

Sudera Service (P.) Ltd.

Law:

Section:

Section 43B of the Income tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed only on actual payment - Whether in order to be qualified as deductions, provident fund contributions must be made within due date - Held, yes FACTS The assessee-company made payment of provident fund contributions beyond the prescribed time and claimed deduction of said payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order directing that the due date in each of the payments involved, would have to be considered by the Assessing Officer and in case those were found to have been paid within the due date, then, and then only, would the deductions be allowed. Instead of going before the Assessing Officer on the basis of the said order, the assessee went directly to the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal allowed deduction in respect of delayed payment of provident fund dues even though it accepted that the amounts could be disallowed on strict interpretation of section 43B. On reference : HELD The consistent judicial view is, that for the purpose of getting provident fund contribution deductions, the due date has to be strictly observed. On the basis of the wording of section 43B(b ) and the consistent judicial opinion, it is quite clear that so long as the clause and theExplanation exist in unmodified terms in the statute book, provident fund contributions must be made within the due date for those to qualify for deductions under the Act. Such being the law, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was to be restored Note : The case was decided in favour of the revenue. CASES REFERRED TO CIT v. Edcons (India) (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 86 (Cal.), CIT v. K.L. Thirani & Co. Ltd. [1996] 218 ITR 149 (Cal.), CIT v. South India Corpn. Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114 (Ker.) and CIT v. Sree Kamakhya Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 714 (Cal.). JUDGMENT In this reference made by the Tribunal under section 256(1), two questions were referred to us for decision. Those are as follows : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing to allow deduction in respect of delayed payment of provident fund dues even accepting that the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492