Amendment To Section 36(1)(va) Of Income Tax Act Is Prospective In Nature
Case: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 versus TV Today Network Ltd.
Coram: Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case No.: ITA 227/2022
Court Observation: “It is therefore evident that the enunciation of law by this court on the issue of ‘due date’ in case of delay by the assessee in depositing the employee contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act is to be reckoned as the date for filing the return under Section 139 (1) of the Act and not the due date of the relevant Labour statute.”
“The legislature is therefore conscious that the Explanation seeks to change the law as it stands on date and is therefore intended to apply to subsequent assessment years. The contention of the revenue therefore that the said amendment is retrospective cannot be accepted.”
“It is also noted that in the facts of the case, the due date for depositing the Employees’ contribution to the Provident Fund was 20th April, 2012 and the assessee had deposited the same on 25th April, 2012. There is no dispute that the amount stands deposited before the filing of the return. We, therefore, find that there is no ground for taking a view different from the view consistently held by this court since AIMIL Ltd.(supra).”
Previous Posts
S.20 SRA: Power To Grant Decree Of Specific Performance Is “Discretionary”: Tripura High Court
Keywords
Prospective In Nature, Income Tax Act
