AGNORMS HOSPITALS PVT. LTD.,VELLORE vs. ADIT CPC, VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 85/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 June 2023AY 2019-202 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal upheld the disallowance of late ESI & EPF payments, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, it directed the AO to allow the deduction u/s 10JJAA as the amendment allowing such adjustments by CPC was not applicable for the assessment year in question.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was processed by CPC, making an adjustment for late payment of ESI & EPF. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The assessee also claimed deduction u/s 10JJAA, which was denied due to non-filing of Form 10DA.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of late ESI & EPF payments is permissible under Section 143(1). Whether deduction u/s 10JJAA can be denied solely for non-filing of Form 10DA when the CPC processing powers were not yet amended.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 10JJAA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय �ी महावीर िसंह, उपा� एवं माननीय �ी मनोज कुमार अ%वाल ,लेखा सद( के सम । BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/s. Agnorms Hospitals Pvt.Ltd ADIT, बनाम 44, (Old No,87) Arcot Road CPC / Vs. Sathuvachari, Vellore-632 009. Bengaluru. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAGCA-2980-G (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 26-06-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26-06-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →