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

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

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

ITA 402/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

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…

M/S. Empower Guarding Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 559/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Empower Guarding Services Private Limited, Vs. Acit, No.69, 2Nd Floor, Lic Colony, Woc Road, Central Processing Centre, Near Shankar Matt, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aacce1898 H Assessee By : Smt. Kusuma Yathish Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.08.2021 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.5,82,050/-. In An Intimation Dated 04.03.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 4,23,182/- 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 Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Smt. Kusuma YathishFor 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

…of 6 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…

Mount Victoria Granites Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 557/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Mount Victoria Granites Limited, Vs. Dcit, No.120 Hoodi Apartments, Central Processing Centre, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Aabcm 1663 P Assessee By : Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwara Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.09.2021 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.22,46,814/-. In An Intimation Dated 30.04.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 13,50,284/- 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. C. A. Madhukeshwara 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…

Arco Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariandshri George George Kassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR)

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

…been deposited as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 1.2 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law in disregarding the decision of jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Sabari Enterprises (2008) [298 ITR 141 (Kar)(HC)] along with Supreme court judgement in CIT v. Alorn Extrusions Ltd., [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC)], wherein it has been held that employees' contribution under PF and ESI Act, remitted after due dates prescribed under said statutes but before due date for filing return under section 139(1) is allowable as deduction 1.3. The Learned CIT(A) h…

Bhagawanji Harish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 380/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Karan Ganna, 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

…u/s.139(1) of the Act 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) Essae Teraija (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka). 4. The CIT(A) however upheld the order of the AO. 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…

Bhagawanji Harish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 379/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Karan Ganna, 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

Mssv & Co., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 429/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor 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

…fact is not in dispute) hence has to be 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), M/s Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd vs DCIT - [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka) Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). 4. However the CPC by the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. In so far as the disallowance of employee share of PF is concerned, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment ma…

Mssv & Co., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 428/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor 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

Zenpower Technologies LLP, Bengaluru vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 426/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.B.S.Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

…) of the Act, which fact has not been disputed by the Ld C!T(A) or Ld AO . 6. The Ld C!T(A) and the Ld AO erred in not appreciating that the issue was covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Shabar Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), CIT v Spectrum Consultants India Pvt t.tc (WA No.4077/2013), Essae Teraoka Pvt Ltd v OCIT (ITA No.480/2013); 7. The Ld CITCA) erred in holding that the employees contribution to PF and ESI were covered by section 43B of the Act relying on the Explanation 5 to section 43B inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01 April 2021. 8.…

M/S. Saysoft Tech Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Saysoft Tech Services Private Limited, Vs. Acit, No.38, First Floor, 12Th Main, 27Th Cross, Central Processing Centre, Jayanagar, 4Th Block, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 011. Pan : Aaocs 3596 M Assessee By : Shri. K. Yathish, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.07.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assesse Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.29,41,390/-. In An Intimation Dated 07.05.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 12,98,450/- 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. Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. K. Yathish, 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

…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. Sterling Urban Developments Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sterling Urban Developments Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, 8, Level – 5 – Prestige Nebula, Circle – 6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp To It Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, 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). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Central Processing Centre (CPC), 4. assessee filed application under section 154 of the Act on 08.06.2020 but the same was rejected by an order dated 10.07.2020 in so far as it relates to delayed remittance of employees’…

Shri Sai Ram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 425/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

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 DCIT (366 ITR 408) (Karnataka He), CIT Vs Sabari Enterprises, (2008) (298 ITR 141 (Karnataka He) and other judicial precedence including the decision of Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case Salzgitter Hydraulics P Ltd v ITO decided in IT Appeal No. 644(HYD) of 2020 dated 15th June, 2021. 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…

Sonicwall Technology Systems India Private Limited ( Formerly Known As Dell Software India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Ward-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 419/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sonicwall Technology Systems India Vs. Ito, Private Limited Ward International Taxation – 1(2), (Formerly Known As Dell Software India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Embassy Tech Village 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Block-F, Devarabisanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaacq 1441 N Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 13Section 139Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s. Sonicwall Technology Systems India Vs. ITO, Private Limited Ward International Taxation – 1(2), (formerly known as Dell Software India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Embassy Tech Village 3rd and 4th Floor, Block-F, Devarabisanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 103. PAN : AAACQ 1441 N Assessee by : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 08.11.2021 Date of Pron…

Everestims Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 408/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.407, 408/Bang/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2019-20 M/s. Everestims Technologies Private Vs. DCIT, Limited, Central Processing Centre, Site No.14, PID No.57-166-14, Bengaluru. Axis One 4, 3rd Floor 15th Cross, 100 Feet Ring Road, 4th Phase, JP Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. PAN : AAECE 6095 N Assessee by : Shri. Shambu Sharma, CA Revenue by : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 02.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 09.11.2…

Everestims Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 407/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Sony India Software Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 398/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: JCIT (DR)

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…tention of the Ld.CIT(A) that the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 is retrospective in nature, the Ld.AR submitted that, the amendment is applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. He relied on the following decisions in support.  CIT v Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (KAR.)  Essae Teraoka P Ltd v DCIT 366 ITR 408  M/s Jana Urban Services for Transformation Pvt. Ltd v DCIT ITA No.307/Bang/2021 by order dated 11.10.2021.  M/s.Bevel Gears (India) Pvt.Ltd v ACIT ITA No.376/Bang/2021 by order dated 11.10.2021. On the contrary, the Ld.Sr.DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused th…

M/S. J K Foot Wear, Bengaluru vs. Centralized Processing Center, Benaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 395/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 394 & 395/Bang/2021 Assessment years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. J K Footwear, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner # 5, J.M. Lane, of Income Tax, Balepet Cross, Circle 2(2)(1) / ADIT (CPC) Bengaluru – 560 053. Bengaluru. PAN: AAHFJ 5843M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, A…

M/S. J K Foot Wear, Bengaluru vs. Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 394 & 395/Bang/2021 Assessment years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. J K Footwear, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner # 5, J.M. Lane, of Income Tax, Balepet Cross, Circle 2(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 053. Bengaluru. PAN: AAHFJ 5843M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Me…

Ef Site Technologies Private Limited, Benglauru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 387/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Amrit Raj Singh, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 436Section 43B

…(1) of the Act, which fact has not been disputed by the Ld CIT(A) or Ld AO. 5.The Ld CIT(A) and the Ld AO erred in not appreciating that the issue was covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Shabari Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), CIT v Spectrum Consultants India Pvt Ltd ."" (WA No.4077/2013), Essae Teraoka Pvt Ltd v DCIT (ITA No.480/2013). 6.The Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that the employees contribution to PF and ESI were covered by section 436 of the Act relying on the Explanation 5 to section 43B inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01 April 2021. 7…

Equipment Fabricators, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 23ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…) of the Act, which fact has not been disputed by the Ld CIT (A) or Ld AO. 9. The Ld CIT(A) and the Ld AO erred in not appreciating that the issue was covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Shabari Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), CIT v Spectrum Consultants India Pvt Page 3 of 16 Ltd (WA No.4077/2013), Essae Teraoka Pvt Ltd v DCIT (ITA No.480/2013); INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A: 10. The Ld AO erred in levying interest of Rs.16,003/- under section 23A of the Act, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 11. The Ld CIT (A) and Ld AO erred in not appreciating that t…