METSO OUTOTEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI, DELHI
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return of income, which was selected for scrutiny due to various reasons including international transactions and stock differences. A transfer pricing adjustment was made, and the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order based on the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions. The assessee appealed against this order.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal accepted Ground No. 13, stating that the delay in depositing employee contributions to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance was due to bank holidays and not intentional. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's disallowance of deduction under Section 36 was set aside.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the allowability of deduction for employee contributions to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance when there was a slight delay in deposit due to bank holidays. Other issues related to transfer pricing adjustments and the validity of the assessment order were also raised.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 92CA,Section 36,Section 43B,Section 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “I”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is against assessment order dated 26.07.2024 of Ld. Assessing Officer/ Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred to as P a g e | 2
“the AO”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the company filed return of income on 05.01.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,83,01,36,530/-. Revised return of income was filed by the assessee on 09.03.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,83,01,36,530/-. Revised return of incom
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 144C(13)
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 3453/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6805/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Tbea Green Energy (India) Private Limited… vs ACIT, Central Circle 1, Vadodara, GujaratITA 592/AHD/2026[2022-2023]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
- At&T Communication Services India Private… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 5593/DEL/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The Lead Factory vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes.Karnataka · 7 Oct 2026
- Dolphin Motor Agency, Cuttack vs. Additional Commissioner Of State Tax (Appeal), Central Zone-Ii, CuttackOrissa · 7 Oct 2026
- Devendra Singh Kanyal vs. Assistant CommissionerUttarakhand · 7 Oct 2026
- Trivitron Healthcare Private LTD vs. Deputy Commissioner Division Vi CGST Central Excise Commissionerate BelapurBombay · 7 Oct 2026
- Mr Ca Mukunda vs. Mr. Ca. Shiva Prakash H SKarnataka · 7 Oct 2026