Amendment To Section 36(1)(va) Of Income Tax Act Is Prospective In Nature: Delhi High Court

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

Exporter Not Required To Hold IEC Number To Avail Benefits Under ‘Service Exports From India’ Scheme: Bombay High Court

Failure To Mention Blacklisting As A Probable Action Does Not Disable Tenderer From Blacklisting The Delinquent Bidder: J&K&L High Court

Section 311 CrPC Application Cannot Be Dismissed Merely On The Ground That It Will Lead To Filling In Loop Holes Of Prosecution Case: Supreme Court

Police Not “Boss” Of Public Administration; Can’t Investigate Complaints Without Registering FIR/ Entering Into Formal Process: J&K&L High Court

Dental College Admits 16 Aspirants Without NEET: Rajasthan HC Refuses To Regularize Admissions, Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation Each

Motor Accident Claim Not A “Bonanza”, Insurance Company Can’t Be Saddled With Exorbitant Amounts For Temporary Injuries: Tripura High Court

Unqualified Person Appointed On Ad-Hoc Basis Cannot Claim Right To Continue In Employment As A Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court

S.20 SRA: Power To Grant Decree Of Specific Performance Is “Discretionary”: Tripura High Court

High Court Must Respect Exercise Of Discretionary Powers By District Judiciary, Cannot Play Role Of ‘Headmaster’: Delhi HC

Employer’s Failure To Meet Needs Of Disabled Persons Breaches Norms Of “Reasonable Accommodation”: Tripura High Court


Prospective In Nature, Income Tax Act