Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(va), Section 43B, Section 143(1), Section 2(24)(x), Section 143(1)(a), Section 37(1).

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises

Q: How many judgments cite 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises?

706 judgments on BharatTax cite 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises (298 ITR 141), spanning 2013 to 2026.

298 ITR 141High Court2008#74 most cited

What is 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises authority for?

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

706

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 382,409 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sabari Enterprises · 298 ITR 141 · Karnataka High Court · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · employee contribution · provident fund · ESI · payment before return filing · disallowance · due date for deposit · employer contribution · Alom Extrusions

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 143(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 43(b)section 36(va)undisclosed foreign income and assets section 43b(b)section 34(1)(iv)section 3(b)section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)actual payment basis section 34(1)section 201(3)section 36(1)(iv)

Judgments citing 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises

Hotel Miramar, Daman vs. Assistnt Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.129/Srt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hotel Miramar, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Devka Beach, Nani Daman, Vapi. Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (U.T). (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfh5561Q Assessee By Shri Kaushani Shah Proxy Ca For Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short ‘The Nfac’], Delhi, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer, Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 15.04.2019. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Fairly Agreed That The Issue In This Appeal Pertains To Employees’ Contribution To Provident Fund & Esic, Which Is Squarely Covered Against The Assessee By The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., In Civil Application No.2833 Of 2016, Dated 12.10.2022. 3. On The Other Hand, The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. Dr) For The Revenue Also Agreed That The Present Assessee’S Appeal Is Covered Against The Ita 129/Srt/2021/Ay.2017-18 Hotel Miramar

Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43Section 43B

…ed fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That 24 Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Aimil Ltd., [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court). 25 Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs. Sabari Enterprises, [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karnataka High Court). 26 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bombay High Court). 27 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd., [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616 (Rajasthan High Court). 32 Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from t…

M/S. Rajputana Stainless Ltd., Panchmahal vs. The Principal CIT, (Central), Surat at Vadodara, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 114/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.114/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rajputana Stainless Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of 213, Madhvas, Halol Kalol Road, Income Tax (Central), Surat At Vs. Kalol, Panchmahal-389330 Vadod "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacr 9333 G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Kinjal Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli-CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd, Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Aayakar Bhavan, Building Ak Nayak Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaacg 1846 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Babulal Sharma, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Babulal Sharma, AR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…321 ITR 508 (Delhi Tax Vs. Aimil Ltd., [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi Tax Vs. Aimil Ltd., [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court). Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs. Sabari Tax and another Vs. Sabari Enterprises, [ Enterprises, [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karnataka High 2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karnataka High Court). Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bombay High Court). [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bombay High Court). Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udai…

Royal Furnisher, Jammu vs. Assesing Officer Ward- 2 (2), Jammu

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 54/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to express itself clearly.'" 51. The analysis of the various judgments cited on behalf of the assessee i.e.,CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and NipsoPolyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of th…

I-Security Services, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1003/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…fact has not been disputed by the Learned CIT (A) or Learned AO. 9. The Learned CIT(A) and the Learned AO erred in not appreciating that the issue was covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Shabari Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), CIT v Spectrum Consultants India Pvt Ltd (WA No.4077/2013), Essae Teraoka Pvt Ltd v DCIT (ITA No.480/2013); Each one of the above grounds is without prejudice to the other and without prejudice to the grounds of appeal taken earlier. The Appellant reserves the right to further add, alter or amend each one of the above grounds of appeal.”…

Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

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

ITA 58/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…d fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That 24 Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. Aimil Ltd., [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court). 25 Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs. Sabari Enterprises, [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karnataka High Court). 26 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bombay High Court). 27 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd., [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616 (Rajasthan High Court). 32 Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from t…

M/S. Suresh Electricals, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Suresh Electricals, Vs. Dcit, Ward No.25, Cmc T. S. No.227, Tilak Cpc, Nagar, Khb Colony, Bengaluru. Bellary – 583 101. Pan : Abyfs 9751 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…psoPloyfabriks Ltd. [2013 350 ITR 327 (HP) Sagun Foundry (P) Ltd. V. CIT (2017) 78 taxmann.com 47 (all) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 163/[2013] 217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/35 taxmannn.com 616 (Raj.) CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar) CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 167/{2013} 217 Taxman 207/37 taxmann.com 160 (Punj & Har.) CIT v. Ghatge Patil Page 8 of 14 Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749/[2015] 53 taxmann.com 141/228 Taxman 340 Bihar State Warehousing Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT [2016] 368 ITR 410 (Patna) CIT vs. Vijay Shree Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com…

Bhoruka Fabcons Private Limited, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 910/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Bhoruka Fabcons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.427E, Hebbal Industrial Area, Cpc, Mysuru – 570 016. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccb 9377 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bhargava S. N, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 28.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Calculated In The Prescribed Manner Under The Relevant Act. As Per Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. Bhargava S. N, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…psoPloyfabriks Ltd. [2013 350 ITR 327 (HP) Sagun Foundry (P) Ltd. V. CIT (2017) 78 taxmann.com 47 (all) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 163/[2013] 217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/35 taxmannn.com 616 (Raj.) CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar) CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 167/{2013} 217 Taxman 207/37 taxmann.com 160 (Punj & Har.) CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749/[2015] 53 taxmann.com 141/228 Taxman 340 Bihar State Warehousing Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT [2016] 368 ITR 410 (Patna) CIT vs. Vijay Shree Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com 396/224 Taxma…

Chase Security, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 796/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Chase Security, Vs. The Ito, No.16/A, 1St Floor, Millar Tank Bund Ward – 6(3)(1), Cpc, Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Aaefc 2412 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2021 By The Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Vinod Kumar Tandon, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CPC), Begaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 29/ALLD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…count of the legislature's failure to 14 Vinod Kumar Tandon express itself clearly.'" 51. The analysis of the various judgments cited on behalf of the assessee i.e., CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of…

Mayur Uniquoters Limited, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, New Delhi

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 2/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: MonishaChoudhary, JCIT

Section 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 80J

…ed fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That 24 Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Aimil Ltd., [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court). 25 Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs. Sabari Enterprises, [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karnataka High Court). 26 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bombay High Court). 27 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSandh Ltd., [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616 (Rajasthan High Court). www.taxmann.com 32 Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is e…

Checkmate Services P Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

C.A. No.-002833-002833 - 2016Supreme Court12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nd (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That 24 Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Aimil Ltd., [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court). 25 Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs. Sabari Enterprises, [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karnataka High Court). 26 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bombay High Court). 27 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd., [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616 (Rajasthan High Court). 32 Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is…

M/S. Optimal Strategix Consulting Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 842/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…wance should not be made, since the above said payment has been made prior to the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee relied on the decision rendered by jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Sabari Enterprises (298 ITR 141)(Kar). However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee by following the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 in sections 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 8. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has remitted the employees contribution of PF & ESI before the due…

Bharat Silks, Bangalore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 683/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Bharat Silks, 154, Bommasandra The National e- Industrial Area, Assessment Bommasandra, Centre, Bangalore – 560 099. Delhi. Vs. PAN: AADFB0871B APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Joseph Varghese, Assessee by Advocate : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 22-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22-09-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by the assessee has been filed by assessee against the order date…

Enmas India Private Limited, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/CHNY/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.714/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020 -21 M/S. Enmas India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Sp 107, Eom Square Ambattur, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Indl. Estate S.O., Tiruvallur, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Tamil Nadu 600 058. [Pan:Aabce4825F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. & Shri Sriraj Gokavarapu, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 16.12.2020 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.4,77,23,830/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…imil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Shakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 217 Taxman 64/35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. [2013] 217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/37 taxmann.com 1…

M/S, Madras Hydraulic Hose Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 702/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…09] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (supra) 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.c…

M/S Bab Leather Products International, Thirumudivakkam vs. DCIT, Chenai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 665/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.665/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Bab Leather Products The Deputy Commissioner Of International, 162/163, Sidco Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 044. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafb6228M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 28.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 23.09.2015 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.54,09,150/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 43B

Kalpanadevi, Pondicherry vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 664/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.664/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalpanadevi, The Assistant Director Of 34, Koil Mania Street, Vs. Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Pondicherry 605 009. Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Csjpk5198N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.14,89,000/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 43B