• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


ITAT: PF & ESI Should Be Paid Before Deadline to Permit Deduction U/S 43B

ITAT's Order for M/s.Technocon Constructions

Remediation for employees’ contribution to PF and ESI must be done prior to the due date to get permissible under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, said the Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

The two-member bench consisting of George George K (Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) laid on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, in which it was held that Section 43B(b) that do not cover the contribution of the employees to PF, ESI and others which the employers deduct from the salaries of the employees and the contribution to the employees would require to get deposited in the mentioned due date under Section 36(1)(va), i.e. due dates under the relevant employee welfare legislation like the PF Act, ESI Act, and others beneath the related employee welfare legislation like the PF Act, ESI Act, and others which comes beneath that shall be treated as an income in the employer’s hands under section 2(24).

The taxpayer served the intimation under section 143(1) via assessing the total income of Rs 1,49,85,533. The cause for the difference between the income return and the assessed income under section 143(1) was because of the disallowance of the late remittance of the employee’s contribution to PF and ESI.

The taxpayer chooses the petition to CIT(A). The CIT(A) tracked the difference between the employer and contributions to PF and ESI and mentioned that merely the contribution to PF and ESI would be qualified to be the deduction when the same would be furnished before the last date of filing the income return.

The taxpayer, the payment of the employee’s contributions to PF and ESI was late and provided prior to the last date of income return filing under section 139(1) of the income tax act and was permissible under section 43B.

ITAT sustained the order of the CIT(A) and has refused the taxpayer’s petition.

Case TitleM/s.Technocon Constructions &
Infrastructure Private Limited
CitationITA No.985/Bang/2022
Date15.11.2022
Counsel For AppellantSri.Rajgopal, AR
Counsel For RespondentSri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR
ITAT BangaloreRead Order

Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check."

Published by Arpit Kulshrestha
Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous. View more posts
SAGINFOTECH PRODUCTS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Us on Google News

Google News

Latest Posts

New Offer for Professionals

Super Tax Offer

Upto 20% Off
Tax, ROC/MCA, XBRL, Payroll, Online GST

Limited Offer, Hurry

Big Offer for Tax Experts

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Genius Software