UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interpretation of income tax provisions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. division of opinion among high courts. (Para 3) |
| 3. statutory provisions summarized. (Para 4) |
| 4. extrusions case and parliament’s intention. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. differences between employee and employer contributions. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 6. interpretation of statutory contributions. (Para 21 , 22 , 25 , 27) |
| 7. conditions for claiming deductions. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. actual payment is mandatory for deductions. (Para 53 , 55) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-IV and Another, Civil Appeal No. 2830 of 2016 was the lead matter while hearing this batch of appeals. However, the parties agreed to treat Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.A. No. 2383 of 2016, as the lead appeal, for convenience. In all these appeals, the common question involved is with respect to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (hereinafter “IT Act”) and whether the appellant assessees are entitled to deduction of amounts deposited by them towards contribution in terms of The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.