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

Perfect Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. Acitcorporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1610/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 68

…s Ltd v. DCIT reported in 2009-TIOL-331 (Del) 5.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that these payments were remitted before the due date of filing the return and hence disallowance is unwarranted. CIT (VS) Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 :-9-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 SLP dismissed in 328 ITR (st.) 10. CIT vs. AIMIL 321 ITR 508 (Del) and the Chennai tribunal decision in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. S.M. Apparels P. Ltd., ITA No. 2119/2011, AY 2003-04.” 4.1 The AR submitted that the issues under the assessment ord…

ITO, Chennai vs. Perfect Stone Ltd., Chennai

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1434/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 68

…s Ltd v. DCIT reported in 2009-TIOL-331 (Del) 5.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that these payments were remitted before the due date of filing the return and hence disallowance is unwarranted. CIT (VS) Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 :-9-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 SLP dismissed in 328 ITR (st.) 10. CIT vs. AIMIL 321 ITR 508 (Del) and the Chennai tribunal decision in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. S.M. Apparels P. Ltd., ITA No. 2119/2011, AY 2003-04.” 4.1 The AR submitted that the issues under the assessment ord…

ITO, Chennai vs. Perfect Stone Ltd., Chennai

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1433/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 68

…s Ltd v. DCIT reported in 2009-TIOL-331 (Del) 5.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that these payments were remitted before the due date of filing the return and hence disallowance is unwarranted. CIT (VS) Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 :-9-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 SLP dismissed in 328 ITR (st.) 10. CIT vs. AIMIL 321 ITR 508 (Del) and the Chennai tribunal decision in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. S.M. Apparels P. Ltd., ITA No. 2119/2011, AY 2003-04.” 4.1 The AR submitted that the issues under the assessment ord…

ITO, Chennai vs. Perfect Stone Ltd., Chennai

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1432/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 68

…s Ltd v. DCIT reported in 2009-TIOL-331 (Del) 5.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that these payments were remitted before the due date of filing the return and hence disallowance is unwarranted. CIT (VS) Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 :-9-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 SLP dismissed in 328 ITR (st.) 10. CIT vs. AIMIL 321 ITR 508 (Del) and the Chennai tribunal decision in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. S.M. Apparels P. Ltd., ITA No. 2119/2011, AY 2003-04.” 4.1 The AR submitted that the issues under the assessment ord…

ITO, Chennai vs. Perfect Stone Ltd., Chennai

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1431/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 68

…s Ltd v. DCIT reported in 2009-TIOL-331 (Del) 5.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that these payments were remitted before the due date of filing the return and hence disallowance is unwarranted. CIT (VS) Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 :-9-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 SLP dismissed in 328 ITR (st.) 10. CIT vs. AIMIL 321 ITR 508 (Del) and the Chennai tribunal decision in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. S.M. Apparels P. Ltd., ITA No. 2119/2011, AY 2003-04.” 4.1 The AR submitted that the issues under the assessment ord…

ITO, Chennai vs. Perfect Stone Ltd., Chennai

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1430/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 68

…s Ltd v. DCIT reported in 2009-TIOL-331 (Del) 5.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that these payments were remitted before the due date of filing the return and hence disallowance is unwarranted. CIT (VS) Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 :-9-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 SLP dismissed in 328 ITR (st.) 10. CIT vs. AIMIL 321 ITR 508 (Del) and the Chennai tribunal decision in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. S.M. Apparels P. Ltd., ITA No. 2119/2011, AY 2003-04.” 4.1 The AR submitted that the issues under the assessment ord…

Denis Chem Lab Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

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

ITA 2668/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasaddenis Chem Lab Ltd. Acit, बनाम/ Block No.457, Mehsana Circle, Vs. Gidc Estate, Phase – I, Mehsana. Village : Chhatral, Tal. Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd 4123 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parth Patel, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri O.P. Pathak, Joit.Cit

For Respondent: Shri O.P. Pathak, Joit.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) c) CIT vs. Lakhani Rubber Works 326 ITR 415 (P&H)(2010) d) Precision Products vs. ACIT (ITA No.4/Ahd/2011)(Ahd)(2012) e) Sai Consulting Engineers (P) Limited. V. DCIT Circle 8, Abd. ITA No. 2262/Ahd/2007 f) Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 (Kar) g) George Williamson 284 ITR 619 (Gau) h) Sunil Goel v. ACIT 118 TTJ (Del) 415 i) CIT v. P.M. Electronics Limited. 15 DTR 258 (Delhi High Court) j) CIT v. AIMIL Limited & Ors. (2010) 35 DTR (Del) 68 (Delhi High Court) Denis Chem lab Ltd. vs. ACIT A.Y. 2012-13 k) CIT v. ANZ Information Technology 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka) I) Additional CIT v.…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. M/S.Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 1603/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoincome-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(3), Bengaluru … Appellant Vs. M/S.Duster Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd. No.50, 4Th Floor, Zatakia Centre, 100 Feet Road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru. … Respondent & Cross Objn.No.39/Bang/2017 (In Ita No.1603/Bang/2016) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (By The Assessee) ***** Assessee By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Ca. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT(DR)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(3), Bengaluru … Appellant Vs. M/s.Duster Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd. No.50, 4th floor, Zatakia Centre, 100 Feet Road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru. … Respondent AND Cross Objn.No.39/Bang/2017 (In ITA No.1603/Bang/2016) (Assessment year: 2013-14) (By the assessee) ***** Assessee by : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, CA. Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 21/09/2017 Date of pronouncement : 19/12/2017 O R D E R…

DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharjee, FCA, ld.AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…total income of the assessee. 4. Before the CIT-A the assessee in support of its contention relied on various following case laws:- • CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd 321 ITR 508(Del) • CIT Vs.ANZ Information Technology P.Ltd 318 ITR 123(Kar) • CIT Vs. Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 (Kar) • CIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd 284 ITR 619(Gau) • ITAT, Delhi’s order dt. 06-09-2012 and various decisions of Courts, held that the case of assessee in depositing the Employee’s Provident Fund before the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) is admissible. 5. The CIT-A after considering the submissions and case laws mentioned he…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. M/S Colour Lines Clothing India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 431/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: None
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 43B

…he appeal. 4. We have carefully perused the grounds of appeal and the order of CIT(Appeals) and we find that the CIT(Appeals) has adjudicated the issue, following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sabari Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141 having noted that the payments were made before the filing of return of income, therefore the expenditure is to be allowed u/s. 43B of the Act. Since the CIT(Appeals) has adjudicated the issue following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we Page 3 of 3 find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly the order…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Extreme Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed

ITA 434/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A .No.434/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 144CSection 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A .No.434/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Extreme Networks India Pvt. Ltd, 8th floor, Temple Steps, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1) No.184-187, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 015. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A .No.449/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 M/s. Extreme Network…

Extreme Networks India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed

ITA 449/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A .No.434/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 144CSection 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A .No.434/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Extreme Networks India Pvt. Ltd, 8th floor, Temple Steps, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1) No.184-187, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 015. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A .No.449/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 M/s. Extreme Network…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Page Point Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3987/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Sudeep Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Pramita Tripathi, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153CSection 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

…aw but deposited before filing the return is allowable expenditure?” 11. Issue in controversy has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in cases cited as CIT vs. AIMIL Limited – 321 ITR 508 (Del.) and CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. – 313 ITR 137 (Bom.) by deciding in favour of the assessee. The ratio of the judgment in case of CIT vs. AIMIL (supra) is reproduced as under :- “Case Note : Direct Taxation - Deduction - Contribution to ESI - Present appeal has been filed against order whereby revenue's appeal against order disallowance made by AO was held invalid was rejected - Whether Tri…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Page Point Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3985/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Sudeep Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Pramita Tripathi, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153CSection 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

…aw but deposited before filing the return is allowable expenditure?” 11. Issue in controversy has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in cases cited as CIT vs. AIMIL Limited – 321 ITR 508 (Del.) and CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. – 313 ITR 137 (Bom.) by deciding in favour of the assessee. The ratio of the judgment in case of CIT vs. AIMIL (supra) is reproduced as under :- “Case Note : Direct Taxation - Deduction - Contribution to ESI - Present appeal has been filed against order whereby revenue's appeal against order disallowance made by AO was held invalid was rejected - Whether Tri…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Maini Material Movement Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1049/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.1049/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -12(1), Bangalore .. Appellant V. M/S. Maini Material Movement P. Ltd, 131, 6Th Floor, Devatha Plaza, Residency Road, Bangalore .. Respondent Pan : Aabcm8922D Assessee By : Ms. Susan Matew, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 24.11.2015 Pronounced On : 27.11.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Ms. Susan Matew, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…aring for the appellant fairly submits that while answering similar questions, a Division Bench of this Court has already taken a view against the revenue in ITA Nos. 1087 and 1088 of 2006 and judgment rendered in this case of CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141(Kar.) virtually covers the present case also. 4. However, the learned counsel would submit that the revenue having not accepted the correctness of the decision has sought for grant of leave before the Supreme Court and as of now Special Leave Petition is pending before the Supreme Court and therefore, submits this matter can be admitted and kept…

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Telangana vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 214/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…2010) (319 ITR 306) has held that payment of employees contribution to the respective account by the employer would be allowed as deduction on actual payment. • The Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and Ors Vs Sabari Enterprises & Ors (298 ITR 141), wherein the assessee had made contributions toward PF and ESI after the close of the accounting year but before the due date for filling of the return under s.139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, held that the payments made could not be disallowed even if made beyond the period prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. • In the case of Stri…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Agila Specialties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 179/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…2010) (319 ITR 306) has held that payment of employees contribution to the respective account by the employer would be allowed as deduction on actual payment. • The Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and Ors Vs Sabari Enterprises & Ors (298 ITR 141), wherein the assessee had made contributions toward PF and ESI after the close of the accounting year but before the due date for filling of the return under s.139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, held that the payments made could not be disallowed even if made beyond the period prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. • In the case of Stri…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Apollo Power Sytems Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 654/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. B. Somashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 139Section 36(1)(va)

…es’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts which were remitted beyond the period mentioned under the said statutes, but before the due dates of filing the returns. Their Lordships, following the decision in the case of CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [298 ITR 141] held that if such deductions for employees’ contribution were remitted before the due date for filing the return, it had to be allowed since the due date applicable is the date for filing the return of income u/s.139 of the Act and not what is mentioned under the EPF and ESI Acts. Same view has been taken in the case of M/s. Essae Teraoka P. Ltd…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sobha Renaissance Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1571/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George, K & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 10ASection 139Section 36

…been made before the due date of filing of the return and the same has to be 4 ITA No.1571 (Bang)2014 allowed as deduction. The assessee for the above preposition relied on the following judgment/orders. a. CIT & Others Vs Sabari Enterprises & Others (2007)298 ITR 141(Kar.) b. Asia Power Projects (P)Ltd Vs DCIT (2007)(Bangalore ITAT). c. Kuber Hinges(P)Ltd Vs ITO(2008) 120 TTJ 284(Delhi ITAT) d. Sunil Goel Vs ACIT(2008) 118 TTJ 415 (Delhi ITAT) e. DCIT Vs Seagram Distilleries Ltd (2009) ITA/2532/Del/2006(Delhi ITAT) 6.3. The CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon‘ble jurisdictional High Court in the case o…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Apollo Power Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boazdeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Apollo Power Systems Pvt. Ltd. # 31, 1St Floor, 1St Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore. … Respondent Pan: Abca1844Q Appellant By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit(Dr). Respondent By: Shri B.Somaskanda, Advocate.

For Appellant: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri B.Somaskanda, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…we find that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by M/s.Apollo Power Systems Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 3 the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) as well as in the case of Sabari Enterprises (298 ITR 141)(Kar). We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 5. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 30th July, 2015. sd/- sd/- (Jason P Boaz) JUDICIAL MEMBER eksrinivasulu Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order…