|
II. Direct Tax Case laws:
1. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TAX APPEAL NO.
637 of 2013, Date of Order : 26.12.2013, Gujarat High Court
Employees’
PF/ ESI Contribution is not covered by s. 43B & is only allowable
as a deduction u/s 36(1)(va) if paid by the “due date” prescribed
therein
S. 43B
which permits a deduction for payments made upto the due date for filing
the ROI applies only to the employer’s contribution to the provident
fund etc. It does not apply to the employees’ contribution. The
employees’ contribution received by the employer-assessee is deemed to
be income in the assessee’s hands u/s 2(24)(x) and if the assessee has
not credited the said sum to the employees’ account in the relevant fund
or funds on or before the due date mentioned in Explanation to s.
36(1)(va), the assessee shall not be entitled to deductions of such
amount in computing the income referred to in s. 28 of the Act.
(Please click here to view the Judgment).
2.
Popatlal N. Vora Inheritance Trust vs. ITO, Ward 10(4), ITA
No.2365/Ahd/2010, Date of Pronouncement: 22/11/2013, ITAT - Ahemdabad
Whether exemption u/s 54EC can be availed by a Trust even if investments are made in the name of trustees or beneficiaries
Held Yes
It is a
well-settled rule of interpretation in income-tax law that a beneficial
section has to be construed liberally, having due regard to the object
which it intends to serve. The Assessing Officer has interpreted the
word ‘invested’ in section 54EC to mean ‘invested in the assessee ’s
name’, an approach which has no justification as it adds words into the
section and also ignores the purpose which the section is intended to
serve, as such the assessee-trust was rightly eligible for exemption u/s
54EC even if the investment in the prescribed bonds has been made in
the names of trustees/beneficiaries of the assessee-trust.
(Please click here to view the Judgment).
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now