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

Medihal Krishnaiah Raghavendra, Kolar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 52/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh G., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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 me. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has remitted the employees contribution of PF & ESI before the due da…

Sri Peddanna Suresh, Shivamoga vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 627/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

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

Dolcas Botanosys Pvt. Ltd. Bikaner, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore/ACIT, C-1 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 50/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 cuke M/s. Dolcas Botanosys Private Ltd. The ADIT, CPC Rani Bazar Vs. BENGALURU/ ACIT Circle-1, Jaipur Bikaner LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAECM 1703 E` vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Amit Kothari, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Reven…

Ticomp Heels Private Limited, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 86/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ioner of IncomeTax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Gujrat State Road I.T.A. No.86/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2019-20 6 Transport Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Lt…

Sunlight Machine Tools, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.46 & 47/Bang/2022 Assessment years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Sunlight Machine Tools, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner B-25, 1st Cross, Peenya I Stage, of Income Tax, CPC, Peenya Industrial Estate, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. PAN: ABDFS 6623B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : None e Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date of hearing : 09.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022 O R D E R These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 12.11.2021 o…

Sunlight Machine Tools, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 46/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

Alert Manpower, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.35 & 36/Bang/2022 Assessment years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Alert Manpower, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner B 376, 9th Cross, of Income Tax, CPC, Peenya 1st Stage, Ring Road, Bengaluru. Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 058. PAN: AATFA 4936G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : None e Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date of hearing : 09.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022 O R D E R These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 18.10.20…

Alert Manpower, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

M/S. Futura Digital Color Press, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.743/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2019-20 M/s. Futura Digital Color Press, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 4/4, 3rd Main, Tata Silk Farm, of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 082. Circle 5(2)(1), PAN: AAAFF 8377K Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date of hearing : 09.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against th…

Sri Basavaraj Gunjegai, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.742/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2018-19 Sri Basavaraj Gunjegai, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 204, Nethravathi, of Income Tax, CPC, A-3, National Games Village, Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 047. PAN: AFRPG 2929F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date of hearing : 09.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed a…

Vardan Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Income Tax Dept, Mumbai

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

ITA 2344/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvardan Nursing Home Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangaluru Private Limited, Cpc Income Tax 65, Jawahar Nagar, Opp Department Prakash Hotel, Goregaon West, Mumbai – 400062 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccv2156P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

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

…5 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks 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] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Shakari 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.com…

Steel Bird International, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 63, New Delhi

ITA 1573/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1573/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Steel Bird International, Vs Jcit, 2E/3, Jhandewalan Extn., Range-63, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfs7296K Assessee By : Sh. Vikas Katyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Katyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167 , Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2014)…

Nirmal Kumar Bardiya, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT

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

…Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 421 reiterated the same view and SLP filed by department against said judgement dismissed by Supreme Court (2017) 392 ITR (St) 2. There are various other High Court decisions on the issue. CIT Vs. Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) etc. and recent judgement of Patna High Court in Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT (2017) 393 ITR 386. In view of the above Ld. A.O. is wrong and has erred in law in making an addition of Rs. 3,42,412/- to the income of appellant u/s 36 (1) (va) of I.T. Act, 61. In this connection we furthur submit that Ld. A.O. in assessment…

Rmc Gems India Ltd, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT

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

…Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 421 reiterated the same view and SLP filed by department against said judgement dismissed by Supreme Court (2017) 392 ITR (St) 2. There are various other High Court decisions on the issue. CIT Vs. Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) etc. and recent judgement of Patna High Court in Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT (2017) 393 ITR 386 and by Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patel Transporters Ltd. (2015) 153 Taxman 141.. In view of the above Ld. A.O. is wrong and has erred in law in making an addition of Rs. 3,93,122/- to the income of appellant u/s 36 (1…

DCIT CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Eversendai Construction Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 965/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.965/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eversendai Construction Private Limited, No. 1 & 2, The Lords, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Guindy, Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 032. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacce2174N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 09.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 9 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 41(1)

…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…

Orient Craft Ltd., Delhi vs. Asst. DIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 477/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 477/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Orient Craft Ltd., Vs Asstt. Dit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Cpc, D-28, South Extension, Bangalore Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0068M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Mahavir Paints and Adhesives Pvt.Ltd, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 20/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Mahavir Paints & V. The Income Tax Officer Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Ward 2(3)(3) 123/760-D, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacm9521B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 20.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has .Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Amount Paid Towards Esic & Epf Of The Employees, Which Amount Being Allowable Both On The Basis Of Interpretation Of The Statute & On The Basis Of The Decision Of The Apex Court In The, Case Of Allom Extrusion 319 Ir 306 (Sc). Pr. Cit Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. & The Allahabad High Court In The Case Of Shagun Foundry Private Limited Vs. Cit ,Ita No. .87 Of 20061 'The Same Be Allowed. 2. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Esic & Epf, Being A Business Expenditure Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Having Been 'Paid Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income, The Same Being An Allowable Business

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view Page 7 of 17 taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Incom…

M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd, Hazratganj vs. The ACIT -5, Lucknow New

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R

Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 3…

M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd, Hazratgang vs. The ACIT -5, Lucknow New

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R

Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 3…

Mr. Shitij Dhawan, Kanpur vs. The Assessing Officer, Special Range

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 3…