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

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 43BSection 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 assetssection 43b(b)section 34(1)(iv)section 3(b)section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)actual payment basissection 34(1)section 201(3)section 36(1)(iv)

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

Brindavan Roller Flour Mills Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 680/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, 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 learned AR submitted that the assessee has remitted the employees contribution of PF & ESI before the due…

Suresha, Ududpi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 70/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, 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 learned AR submitted that the assessee has remitted the employees contribution of PF & ESI before the due…

Chandramouli, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sachin H.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…nce should not be made, since the above said payments have 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) and Essae Terpala P Ltd (2014)(43 taxmann.com 33)(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. Accordingly, he confirmed the additions made in both the years. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals befo…

Chandramouli, Mysore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sachin H.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…nce should not be made, since the above said payments have 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) and Essae Terpala P Ltd (2014)(43 taxmann.com 33)(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. Accordingly, he confirmed the additions made in both the years. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals befo…

M/S. Brush Tech India, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sachin H.S., 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 us. 4. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has remitted the employees contribution of PF & ESI before the due…

Shantha Rao Gujju, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…nce should not be made, since the above said payments have 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 these appeals before me. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, it has been observed from the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) t…

Shantha Rao Gujju, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 157/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…nce should not be made, since the above said payments have 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 these appeals before me. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, it has been observed from the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) t…

Rameshwar Rai, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer -2, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 75/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Rameshwar Rai V. The Ito-2 5, Civil Lines Bareilly Opp. Rohila Motel Bareilly Tan/Pan:Afypr0788R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Written Submission By The Assessee. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 5.8.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Id. Cit (Appeals) (Nfac) Has Grossly Erred On Facts & Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3,37,008/- Made By The A.O. On A/C Of Employee'S Contribution Of Esi & P.F. Being Late Payment While It Has Been Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return, After Ignoring The Facts & Law As Laid Down By Hon'Ble Allahabad High Court Which Is A Jurisdictional High Court. 2. While Confirming The Addition The Id. Cit (A) Has Grossly Erred In Applying The Case Laws Of Various High Courts When The Law Laid Down By Jurisdictional High Court Was Already Available & Hon'Ble Supreme Court Had Already Dismissed Slp Filed By Deptt. Against The Order Of Rajasthan High Court. 3. The Addition Further Suffers From An Illegality Wherein The A.O. Has Erred In Making The Adjustments In Returned

For Appellant: Written submission by the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 143Section 234

…Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) Page 7 of 17 366 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…

Ultra Value, Lucknow vs. ITO (1)(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 109/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ultra Value V. The Ito (1)(1) C-1619/12, Rajajipuram Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaefu0694G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 21.9.2021 For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Income Returned Should Have Been Accepted. 2. That Application Filed U/S 154 Should Have Been Accepted. 3. The Addition Made By Learned Lower Court Was Not Within The Preview Of Adjustments Which Could Be Made U/S 143(1)(A). 4. That In The Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case Learned Lower Court Erred In Holding That Amendment Made To Section 36(1)(Va) By Finance Act, 2021 Were Retrospective In Nature. 5. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Made Of Page 2 Of 17

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Seth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) Page 7 of 17 366 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…

Mangalore Security Services Private Limited, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 61/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anil Dsouza, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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 us. 4. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has remitted the employees contribution of PF & ESI before the due…

M/S. Lakhotia Belting Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax, Ward, 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 100/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kedar Paranjape, 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) and Essae Teraoka P Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)(43 taxmann.com 33)(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. 4. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has…

Jagmini Micro Knit Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 98/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Jagmani Micro Knit Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 2, Sarvodaya Nagar Circle 2(1)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaach3405B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 04 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)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 Page 8 of 17 Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Inco…

Bhagyashri Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Chandrapur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 112/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Nag/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhagyashri Nagri Sahakari Pt. Sanstha Maryadit At Nawargaon, Dist. Chandrapur, Pan : Aaalb0066F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 112/Nag/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Bhagyashri Nagrisahakari Pt. Sanstha Maryadit At Nawargaon, Dist. Chandrapur, Pan : Aaalb0066F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.P Dewani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ,नागपुर म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH, NAGPUR (Through Virtual Hearing at Raipur) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.122/NAG/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Bhagyashri Nagri Sahakari Pt. Sanstha Maryadit At Nawargaon, Dist. Chandrapur, PAN : AAALB0066F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 112/NAG/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Bhagyashri NagriSahakari Pt. Sanstha Ma…

M/S Bhagyashri Nagri Sah. Pat Sansth Maryadit, Chandrapur vs. Pr. CIT-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 122/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Nag/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhagyashri Nagri Sahakari Pt. Sanstha Maryadit At Nawargaon, Dist. Chandrapur, Pan : Aaalb0066F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 112/Nag/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Bhagyashri Nagrisahakari Pt. Sanstha Maryadit At Nawargaon, Dist. Chandrapur, Pan : Aaalb0066F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.P Dewani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ,नागपुर म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH, NAGPUR (Through Virtual Hearing at Raipur) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.122/NAG/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Bhagyashri Nagri Sahakari Pt. Sanstha Maryadit At Nawargaon, Dist. Chandrapur, PAN : AAALB0066F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 112/NAG/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Bhagyashri NagriSahakari Pt. Sanstha Ma…

Nuance Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)1), Bangalore

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

ITA 649/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA No.649/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2019-2020 M/s.Nuance Group India Private The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Bengaluru International of Income-tax, v. Airport, Alpha 3, Airline Building Circle 3(1)(1) 1st Floor, Devanahalli Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 300. PAN : AAKCS4860P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 Date of Hearing : 30.03.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM : This appeal at t…

Amit Singh, Bhiwadi (Alwar) vs. DCIT, CPC- Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)

…of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 167 (P.H.). 5. Karnataka High Court : February 4, 2014 [2014] 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) M/s Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT 6. Karnataka High Court : [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karn) July 3,2007 Commissioner of Income –Tax vs. Sabari Enterprises 7. Calcutta High Court: August 8, 2018 Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-41 8. Rajasthan High Court: August4,2016 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2 vs. M/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. 9. Bombay High Court: [2014] 36…

Amba Tech Engineering, Jaipur vs. ITO, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)

…vour of the assesseee by the judgments of Hon’ble High Courts, which are produced as under:- 1. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT: February 4, 2014 [2014] 366 ITR 408 (Kar) M/S ESSAE TERAOKA PVT LTD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT: [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karn): July 3, 2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS SABARI ENTERPRISES 3. CALCUTTA HIGH COURT: August 8, 2018 PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA — 1 4.RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT: August 4, 2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-2 VERSUS M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN. LTD. 5. BOMBAY HIGH COU…

Medopharmprivate Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 54/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.54/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Medopharm Private Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 25, Puliyur 2Nd Main Road, Trustpuram, Vs. Income Tax, Cpc, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Aadcm9459R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 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 15.12.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 22.10.2018 Admitting Nil Income. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The Assessment Under 2

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…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…

Vhs Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1676/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

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

…Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) AYs: 2018-19 & 2019-20 366 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)…

Vhs Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1675/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

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

…Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) AYs: 2018-19 & 2019-20 366 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)…