2017) 250 Taxman 16 (SC) (B)Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

266 CTR 246High Court2014#4167 most cited

What is 2017) 250 Taxman 16 (SC) (B)Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

The Central Processing Centre cannot make adjustments under section 143(1)(a)(iv) that go against a jurisdictional High Court ruling in favour of the assessee, even if the ruling was made after the adjustment.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT · section 143(1)(a)(iv) · adjustment by CPC · jurisdictional High Court ruling · assessee favour · income tax assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 143(1)(a)(iv)

Issues it is cited on

section 215section 40(a)(1)employees contribution to pfsection 2(24)(x)section 2(24)section 36(1)(va)clarificatory amendmentsection 43binterest under section 234cinterest under section 201(1a)section 36(1)percentage completion method

Judgments citing 2017) 250 Taxman 16 (SC) (B)Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

M/S. Universal Bottler Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shanthappa, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…f filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 6.1 We also note that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Essae Taroka (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 266 CTR 246 and Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2013) 266 CTR 94 has Page 6 of 6 ITA Nos. 140 & 141/Bang/2022 affirmed the above view. In view of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act will not have application for the relevant assessment years, namely assessment years…

M/S. Universal Bottler Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shanthappa, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…f filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 6.1 We also note that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Essae Taroka (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 266 CTR 246 and Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2013) 266 CTR 94 has Page 6 of 6 ITA Nos. 140 & 141/Bang/2022 affirmed the above view. In view of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act will not have application for the relevant assessment years, namely assessment years…

Bengaluru International Group of Service, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Bengaluru International Group Of Service, The Assistant Site No. 4 & 12, Sy.No. 96/1, Director Of Income Near South Ridge Apartment, Tax, Jakkur, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 064. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aalfb2496G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prabhakar .K.R, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Herein After Called Cit(A), Is Opposed To Law, Evidences, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Amounting To Rs.79,99,158/- Made By The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, (Ao For Short) In Respect Of The Claim Towards Employees'

For Appellant: Shri Prabhakar .K.R, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…f filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 6.1 We also note that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Essae Taroka (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 266 CTR 246 and Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2013) 266 CTR 94 has affirmed the above view. In view of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act will not have application for the relevant assessment year, namely assessment year 2018-19. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. t…

Ashwin Shetty, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Ashwin Shetty, The Assistant No. 63/A, 13Th Cross, Commissioner Of J.P. Nagar 3Rd Phase, Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 078. Cpc, Pan: Anaps7985B Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.N. Shyanbhag, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.09.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Appeals Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,11,013/-Being Belated Payment Of Employees Contribution Of Esi & Pf Paid Before Due Date For Filing The Return Of Income & An Amount Of Rs.18,362/- Being Club Expenses Incurred By The Employees Made By The A.O. Cpc In 143(1) Proceedings. 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Amendment By Way Explanation 2 To Section 36(1) (Va) & Explanation 5 To The Section 43B Made In The Finance Act 2021 Has Retrospective Effect As Such The Decisions Relied On By The Appellant Are Not Applicable.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Shyanbhag, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…f filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 14. We also note that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Essae Taroka (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 266 CTR 246 and Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2013) 266 CTR 94 has affirmed the above view. In view of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act will not have application for the relevant assessment year, namely assessment year 2018-2019. Accordingly, we direct the A.O.…

Roopa Sampath Kumar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 624/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 Ms. Roopa Sampath Kumar, The Assistant No. 103, Blue Cross Director Of Income Chambers, Tax, Infantry Road, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 Vs. Bangalore. 001. Pan: Ablpk3199A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) — Nfac, Delhi, In So Far Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Delhi Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Employees' Contribution Towards Provident Fund & Employees' State Insurance Of Rs.5,17,229/- Without

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…f filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 6.1 We also note that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Essae Taroka (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 266 CTR 246 and Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2013) 266 CTR 94 has affirmed the above view. In view of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act will not have application for the relevant assessment year, namely assessment year 2019-20. Accordingly, we direct the A.O.…

M/S. Zion Hospitals and Research Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Zion Hospitals & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 9, “Le Villa”, Commissioner Of Kirti Layout, Income Tax, Kammanahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 084. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacz4369G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Loss Of Appellant In The Intimation U/S. 143[1] Of The Act, At Rs. 63,89,502/-As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 43B

…f filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 6.1 We also note that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Essae Taroka (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 266 CTR 246 and Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2013) 266 CTR 94 has affirmed the above view. In view of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act will not have application for the relevant assessment year, namely assessment year 2019-2020. Accordingly, we direct the A.O.…

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Technocon Builders, The Deputy # 337, Sf 8, Commissioner Of Karuna Complex, Income Tax, Sampige Road, Circle - 2 (2)(1), Malleshwaram, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Aaift3196L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajagopal, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Without Jurisdiction, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…f filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 6.1 We also note that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Essae Taroka (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 266 CTR 246 and Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2013) 266 CTR 94 has affirmed the above view. In view of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act will not have application for the relevant assessment year, namely assessment year 2019-2020. Accordingly, we direct the A.O.…

Asst CIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Svg Fashions Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 704/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: None
Section 2(24)(x)

…ore the due date, i.e., the due date prescribed under 4 M/s. SVG Fashions Ltd. section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, he referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Karanataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2014] 266 CTR 246. Accordingly, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 9. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the records, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. No contrary decision from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was brought to our notice. Accordingly, we uphold the ord…