We Take Note Of The Fact That The Question Nowstands Decided Against The Appellant/Assessee And In Favour Ofthe Department/Revenue, By Virtue Of Rulings Reporte v. We Take Note Of The Fact That The Question Now

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1941 ITA.No.144 of 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 309/2017 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 18-06-2018 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION39/1304, WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, KOCHI-682 016. BY ADVS.SRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSMT.A.AMRUTHA VIDYADHARANSRI.NARAYANAN.P.POTTY RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKOCHI-682 018. SRI. SHAMSUDHEEN V K, GOVERNMENT PLEADERSRI. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.07.2019,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.No.144 of 2019 2 C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.& R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J. ----------------------------------- I.T.A. No.144/2019 -------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11[th] DAY OF JULY, 2019. JUDGMENT C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The question of law raised in the above Income Tax Appeal is mainly that, whether delayed payments of theemployees' contribution made to the Employees ProvidentFund Account, is an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(Va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.We take note of the fact that the question nowstands decided against the appellant/assessee and in favour ofthe Department/Revenue, by virtue of rulings reported in,Commissioner of Income Tax V. Merchem Limited[(2015)378 ITR 443(Ker.)], CIT V, Appollo Tyres Ltd.,[2019 Tax Pub(DT)1986 (Ker.-HC)] and Popular Vehiclesand Services Pvt. Ltd V. Commissioner of Income Tax[(2018) 406 ITR 150].We also take note of the fact that,following the above decisions we have recently decidedanother case relating to M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., in the We take note of the fact that the question now ITA.No.144 of 2019 3 judgment in I.T.A No.252/2015, dated 14.06.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant had pointed outanother judgment, which is marked as Annexure E inMemorandum of Appeal, passed by another Division Bench ofthis Court as early as on 02.12.2009 (I.T.A.No.1035/2009),allowing an appeal filed by the assessee on the same subjectmatter. In the said judgment, this Court had followed thedecision in CIT V. Vinay Cement Ltd, 213 CTR 268. Boththe judgments mentioned are concerned with the law as itstood prior to the amendment of Section 43B of the IncomeTax Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the opinion that thosedecisions are not applicable with respect to the presentdispute. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the opinion that interference with the impugned order of theTribunal is not warranted . Consequently, the appeal fails andthe same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Sd/- ajt R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.13. ANNEXURE B:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-1, KOCHI IN ITA NO. 28/R-1/CIT(A)-II/2013-14. ANNEXURE C:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.06.18 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.309/COCH/2017. ANNEXURE D:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM PASSED BYTHE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH, IN ITA NO.309/COCH/2017. ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.12.2009 IN ITA NO.1035/2009.