RANAR AGROCHEM LIMITED,PARAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 288/VIZ/2024Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 August 2026AY 2014-15Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)24 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of delayed employee PF/ESI contributions, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services. It also upheld the disallowance of tax audit expenses due to lack of evidence of tax payment by payees. The addition of unsecured loans was sustained as the assessee failed to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with 40 lenders.

What were the facts?

The assessee company appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions made by the AO. The additions included disallowance of delayed employee PF/ESI contributions, disallowance of tax audit expenses, and addition of unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is allowable as deduction and whether unsecured loans are unexplained cash credits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam

Before: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood

Hearing: 14/10/2025

PER. RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 15/05/2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 30/12/2016 for A.Y.

2 2014-15. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order

on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. The order under Sec.250, dt. 15.5.2

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →