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

Devarayapatana Thimmappa Paramesha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 727/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Devarayapatana Thimmappa Paramesha, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.311, Block B3, Sobha Opal, 39Th Cross, Tax, 18Th Main, Jayanagar 4Th Block, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 041. Bengaluru. Pan : Acopp 0450 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ct is not in dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). 4. With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause (va), by inse…

M/S. Enphase Solar Energy Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 723/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Enphase Solar Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income 259, 2Nd Main, 6Th Cross, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Indiranagar, Stage 1, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 038. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaece 7259 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…Income under section 139(1) of the Act and not the “DUE DATE” for payment of the amounts. The assessee invited CIT(A)’s attention to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court (Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka) in the case of Sabari Enterprises, reported in 298 ITR 141 (Kar), wherein their Lordships have held as under: "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully examined the above statutory provisions of the Act including the definitions of section 2(24)(x) and section 36(1)(va) and 438(b) which read thus : 'Section 2(24) Income' includes (x) any sum received by the assessee from his emplo…

M/S. Loka Shikshana Trust, Hubli vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Loka Shikshana Trust, The Assistant Post Box No. 30, Director Of Income Samyukta Karnataka, Tax, Koppikar Road, Cpc, Hubli – 580 020. Bangalore Vs. Pan: Aaatl1086H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.10.2021 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre, In So Far As Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Is Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Adding The Amount Of Delayed

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ars. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is erred in in law by not following the decisions of jurisdictional High Court in the case of ESSAE TERAOKA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs DC1T (366 ITR 408) (Karnataka HO, Cll' Vs Sabari Enterprises, (2008) (298 ITR 141 (Karnataka HC) and other judicial precedences. 5. For these and other grounds of appeal which may be taken at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far as it relates to the above grounds, the additions made in the order of assessment of Rs 53,35,405/- is deleted. 6. Each of the above ground…

Sri, Ramachandra Naveen, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Ramachandra Naveen, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.4140 Sam Chambers, 80 Feet Road, Central Processing Centre, Girinagar, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 085. Pan : Acvpn 6688 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ct is not in dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). 4. With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause (va), by inse…

Vishal Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 511/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ct is not in dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). 4. With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause (va), by inse…

Vishal Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 510/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ct is not in dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). 4. With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause (va), by inse…

Shree Shyam Designs Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Shree Shyam Designs Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.50/1A/514/2/1, Shri Rajarajeshwari Central Processing Centre, Arcade, 2Nd Floor, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Veerannapalya, Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan : Aakcs 8509 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwar Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ct is not in dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). 4. With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause (va), by inse…

M/S. Icon Engineering Works, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 561/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghavendra Maya, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…ndated U/s 43B. Accordingly, these additions made under these heads needs to be deleted. 2. It is also submitted that as per the jurisdiction High Court of Karnataka in the case : COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX Vs SABARI ENTERPRISES, KARNATAKP HIGH COURT: [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karn) July 3, 2007, wherein its held that section 36(1)(va) clear that amounts actually paid on or before the due date of filing return u/s 139 are allowable deductions – so contributions by assessee to P.F. & Employees State Insurance are deductible even if made beyond period prescribed under 36(1)(va) but before the due date for furnishing ret…

Transsys Solutions Pvt Ltd, Kodambakkam vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 489/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.489/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Transsys Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Director Of Plot. Super A 16-17, Rr Towers, Tvk Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aadct4603N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pawan Bohra, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 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 21.09.2021 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 On 25.10.2019. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Bohra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 16 I.T.A. No. 489/Chny/21 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…

Ajith Padival, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shankar D., CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2018-19 Ajith Padival, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.257/1-13, Bannerghatta Road, of Income Tax, N S Palya, BTM Layout, Circle 4(3(1) / Bengaluru– 560 076. ADIT, CPC, PAN: ADZPP 5786C Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Shankar D., CA Respondent by : Shri K. Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 31.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the a…

Jayarama Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2019-20 Jayarama Reddy, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.3878/1, Jayarama Reddy Building, of Income Tax, Near Biocon Ltd., Balaji Nagar, CPC, Bangalore. Electronics City Post, Bangalore – 560 100. PAN: ABZPJ 1029Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Shambu Sharma, CA Respondent by : Shri K. Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 31.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member Th…

Thoughtspot India Private Limited, Bengluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 493/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Shankar D., CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2019-20 Thoughtspot India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 3rd Floor, Indiqube Qrion, of Income Tax, 24th Main, Garden Layout, Sector 2, Circle 3(1)(1) / HSR Layout, ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru– 560 102. Bangalore. PAN: AAGCT 2626N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Shankar D., CA Respondent by : Shri K. Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 31.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Acco…

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…briks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327 (HP) 5. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 47 (All) 6. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.[2014] 366 ITR163/[2013] 217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj.) 7. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar) 8. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 163/[2013]217 Taxman 207/37 taxmann.com 160 (Punj. & Har.) 10 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Commercial Auto Sales Private Limited, Allahabad 9. CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749/[2015]53taxmann.com 141/228 Taxman 340 10. Bihar State Warehousing Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [201…

Day N Day Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 425/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 424 & 425/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri H. Surendar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Addl.CIT
Section 113Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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…

Day N Day Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 424/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 424 & 425/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri H. Surendar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Addl.CIT
Section 113Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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. Shabari Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 482/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ashwin D.Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.481/Bang/2021: Asst.Year 2018-2019 ITA No.482/Bang/2021: Asst.Year 2019-2020 M/s.Shabari Enterprises The Deputy Commissioner of No.30, Main Road Kodi Income-tax, Circle 4(2)(1) v. Bangalore. Whitefield Bengaluru – 560 066. PAN : AAUFS9509E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ashwin D.Rao, CA Respondent by : Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2022 Date of Hearing : 06.01.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM These appeals at the instance of…

M/S. Shabari Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 481/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ashwin D.Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.481/Bang/2021: Asst.Year 2018-2019 ITA No.482/Bang/2021: Asst.Year 2019-2020 M/s.Shabari Enterprises The Deputy Commissioner of No.30, Main Road Kodi Income-tax, Circle 4(2)(1) v. Bangalore. Whitefield Bengaluru – 560 066. PAN : AAUFS9509E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ashwin D.Rao, CA Respondent by : Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2022 Date of Hearing : 06.01.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM These appeals at the instance of…

Vidhi Clothing Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2019-20 Vidhi Clothing Company, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- No.4, 2nd Cross, Mysore Road, tax (CPC) Opp. Toll Gate, Vinayakanagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 026. PAN – AAHFV 9512 F ASSESSEE REVENUE Revenue by : Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR) Assessee by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Date of hearing : 05.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the o…

Bi Worldwide India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 433/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C.R Krishna, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…T(A), it was submitted that the assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sahari Enterprises 298 ITR 141, the assessee is entitled to deduction of the same. During the course of hearing before the CIT(A), the assessee made written submissions relaying on few more decisions of the jurisdictional High Court viz., CIT Vs. Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., 206 CTR 241 and Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 408. The Ld.CIT(A), however, dismiss…

Genworks Health Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 6

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2019-20 Genworks Health Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Asst. Director of Income-tax Unit 522, 524, Gama Block, (CPC) Sigma Softech Park Varthur Road, Bengaluru-560 500. Hobli, Ramanagondanahalli, Bengaluru-560 066. PAN – AAFCG 8949 N ASSESSEE REVENUE Revenue by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR) Assessee by : Shri K.R Vasudevan, Advocate Date of hearing : 03.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member Thi…