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

Shand Pipe Industry Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H Ananda, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 M/s Shand Pipe Industry Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- No.52, 7th Cross, Wilson Garden, tax (CPC) Bengaluru-560 027. Bengaluru. PAN – AAECS 9353 F ASSESSEE REVENUE Revenue by : Shri H Ananda, Addl.CIT (DR) Assessee by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.A Date of hearing : 27.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.12.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFA…

Kuduma Labour Contract, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Kuduma Labour Contract, Vs. Ito, No.69/1, 35Th Main, 7Th Cross, Ward – 4(3)(2), Btm Layout 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Aajfk 5289 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajashekar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 23.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,71,810/-. In An Intimation Dated 22.02.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs.14,77,428/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Rajashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of Page 2 of 6 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. Anubis Detective & Guarding Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2) Through the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Anubis Detective & Guarding Vs. Ito, Services Private Limited, Ward – 1(1)(2) Through No.37, 1St Floor, 9Th B Cross, Dcit, Wilson Garden, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 027. Bengaluru. Pan : Aafca 4501 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,53,696/-. In An Intimation Dated 16.10.2019 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 12,50,435/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of Page 2 of 6 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. Methods (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Methods (India) Private Limited, Vs. 1. Dcit, #4A, Kiadb Industrial Area, Circle – 4(1)(2), Hosakote Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 562 114. Pan : Aabcm 8680 N 2. Cpc, Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.11.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. In An Intimation Dated 29.06.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 46,87,690/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of Page 2 of 6 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…

B R S Precision Manufacturing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. B. R. S. Precision Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Private Limited, Central Processing Centre, No.19, 5Th Floor, Shivashankar Plaza, Bengaluru. Richmond Circle, Lalbagh Road, Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aaecb 5550 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 23.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. In An Intimation Dated 16.10.2019 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 11,81,345/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of Page 2 of 6 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…

Mr. Yeruva Prasad, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 589/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yatish, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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.588/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2018-2019 ITA No.589/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2019-2020 Sri.Yeruva Prasad The Asst / Deputy Srinivasa Security Services & Commissioner of Income-tax, v. House Keeping Agency CPC, Lakshmi Nilaya, 60 feet Nehru Rd Bengaluru. Kammanahalli Bangalore – 560 084. PAN : AHDPP7862P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Kusuma Yatish, CA Respondent by : Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 O R D E R…

Mr. Yeruva Prasad, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 588/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yatish, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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.588/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2018-2019 ITA No.589/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2019-2020 Sri.Yeruva Prasad The Asst / Deputy Srinivasa Security Services & Commissioner of Income-tax, v. House Keeping Agency CPC, Lakshmi Nilaya, 60 feet Nehru Rd Bengaluru. Kammanahalli Bangalore – 560 084. PAN : AHDPP7862P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Kusuma Yatish, CA Respondent by : Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 O R D E R…

Volantis Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 617/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Volantis Technologies Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, 940, 2Nd Floor, 16Th Main, Btm 2Nd Stage, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 076. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 1855 F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 02.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,25,384/-. In An Intimation Dated 16.06.2021 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs.9,11,370/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Decision Of Supreme Court In Cit Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 Itr Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR Page 2 of 6 306 (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…

Megneil Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 616/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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…

Megneil Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 615/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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. Krishna Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 612/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Krishna Enterprises, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.2 & 23, Next To Lido Mall, Central Processing Centre, Swamy Vivekananda Road, Bengaluru. Milkman Street Junction, Halasuru, Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aabfk 6998 C Assessee By : Shri. Ashok Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 20.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,09,380/-. In An Intimation Dated 29.02.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 1,93,643/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Ashok Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of Page 2 of 6 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. Skava Electric Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 565/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yathish, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…t but remitted prior to filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the binding judgment of 2 M/s.Skava Electric Private Limited. Honorable Jurisdiction High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs Sabari Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) and Essae- Teraoka Pvt Ltd v DCIT (2013) 366 ITR 408 (Kar). c)The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the objects of Faceless Appeal scheme introduced by CDBT and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not considering the issues resolved by Jurisdictional High Court and contemptuously ignoring the binding precedent issued by Jurisdictional…

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

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chanda Poojariassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Vidhi Clothing Company, Vs. Dcit, No.4, 2Nd Cross, Mysore Road, Central Processing Centre, Opp. Toll Gate, Vinayakanagar, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 026. Pan : Aahfv 9512 F Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, 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…

Stirred Creative Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 594/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Susan Mathew, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 6

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.594 & 595/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Stirred Creative Advertising Pvt. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- Ltd., tax (CPC) No.87, Spencer Road, Bengaluru. Frazer Town, Bengaluru. PAN – AAHCS 3047 D ASSESSEE REVENUE Revenue by : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR) Assessee by : Smt. Susan Mathew, C.A Date of hearing : 13.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These appeals by the assessee…

The Millennium Enterprises, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 592/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. The Millennium Enterprises, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.27, Mathru Shree Nilaya, Central Processing Centre, 1St Floor, 6Th Cross, Bengaluru. Balaji Layout, Vajarahalli, Thalagattapur, Bengaluru – 560 062. Pan : Aalft 2849 P Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.19,05,500/-. In An Intimation Dated 06.03.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 6,18,512/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of Page 2 of 6 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…

Kunamneni Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 549/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kunamneni Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Sy. No.72/B, Jaraganahalli Mastrusi Central Processing Centre, Arcade, 2Nd Floor, J. P. Nagar, Bengaluru. 6Th Phase, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaeck 4698 R Assessee By : Shri. H. V. Gowthama, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.40,00,810/-. In An Intimation Dated 16.10.2019 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs.9,38,950/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. H. V. Gowthama, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of Page 2 of 6 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…

Aankit Granites Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 480/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Aankit Granties Limited, Vs. Ito, No.886, 19Th Main, Iv Cross, Ward – 1(1)(3), Btm Layout Ii Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aabca 5821 D Assessee By : Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 30.07.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2014-15 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,99,306/-. In Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2016 Issued U/S.143(3) Of The Act, The Ao Added A Sum Of Rs. 5,99,686/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of Page 2 of 6 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…

Prakashpai Kochikar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Prakash Pai Kochikar, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.680, I Floor, 46Th Cross, 100 Feet Ring Central Processing Centre, Road, 5Th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 041. Pan : Adwpp 7348 F Assessee By : Shri. Prakash Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.17,18,440/-. In An Intimation Dated 12.04.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 15,31,406/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of Page 2 of 6 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…

Vastra Overseas Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Vastra Overseas Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.17/18, Bangalore International Pubic Central Processing Centre, Schoo Road, Chikkalasandra, Uttarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Aaccv 4829 R Assessee By : Shri. Puneet Oberoi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 31.07.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.12,56,350/-. In An Order Dated 06.01.2020 Issued U/S.154 Of The Act, On An Intimation U/S. 143(1) Dated 28.02.2019, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Confirmed The Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.84,179/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Puneet Oberoi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of Page 2 of 6 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…

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 403/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 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…