378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

409 ITR 225High Court2018#1687 most cited

What is 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT authority for?

The beneficial provisions of Section 43B do not apply to sums covered by Section 36(1)(va), which are employee contributions to welfare funds. The scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are distinct, meaning belated payment of employee contributions is not deductible under Section 43B, and only Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) governs their deductibility.

67

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT · 409 ITR 225 · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · Section 2(24)(x) · employee contribution · provident fund · ESI · delayed deposit · deduction disallowance

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)Section 43BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(x)section 143(1)(a)section 2(24)section 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 36(1)section 43section 36section 139(1)section 139section 143(1)section 13

Judgments citing 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

M/S Pramod Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 243/LKW/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…case of CIT M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2020-21 vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj), the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 409 ITR 225 (Mad) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Limited (2014) 368 749 (Bom), all of which had held that the beneficial provisions of section 43B is not extended to sums mentioned under section 36(1)(va). The ld. CIT(A) also took note of the explanatory memorandum, explaining the provisions o…

M/S Pramod Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 242/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…case of CIT M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2020-21 vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj), the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 409 ITR 225 (Mad) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Limited (2014) 368 749 (Bom), all of which had held that the beneficial provisions of section 43B is not extended to sums mentioned under section 36(1)(va). The ld. CIT(A) also took note of the explanatory memorandum, explaining the provisions o…

Shri Madhopur Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Limited, Shrimadhopur vs. Income Tax Officer, Neem Ka Thana

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 749/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ion. The words "Shall deemed never to have been applied" connotes that section 43B has no application with respect to employee's contribution to various welfare funds 9.4 The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Unifac Management Services (India) (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT in 409 ITR 225 stated that "The scope of section 438 and section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belatedly paid towards such contribution, especially when such sum is, admittedly, a sum received by the assessee/employe…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside

ITAT/217/2023HC Calcutta16 Oct 2023

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)

…OD-1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/217/2023 IA NO: GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA VS M/S GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS & ENGINEERS LIMITED KOLKATA BEFORE: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND The HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 16TH OCTOBER, 2023. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ..for appellant Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. Mr. Debashis Mitra, Adv. ….for respondent The Court :- We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and…

Vijaya Mettalica Incorporated, Rajkot vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bangaloreq, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 115/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Oct 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…This legal distinction between employees' contribution and employer’s Contribution under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. In the most recent of the decisions, Hon'ble Madras High Court in UnifacManagement Services (India) (IP.) Ltd. vs DCIT in 409 ITR 225 held that- "The scope of section 43B and section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belatedly paid towards such contribution, especially when such sum is, admittedly, a sum received by the assessee/employe…

Ritesh Tandon, Jabalpur vs. Asstt . Director of Income Tax, CPC, Ward2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 9/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a), the same could not be decided on merits. The decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts ho…

Ritesh Tandon, Jabalpur vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax WD2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 11/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a), the same could not be decided on merits. The decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts ho…

Pragya Savita, Jabalpur vs. A O Circle2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 14/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), wherein, noticing, 2 | P a g e Pragya Savita v. AO inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a), the same could not be decided on merits. The decis…

Mukesh Kalway, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 43/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…the due date specified u/s. 36(1)(va), even as, admittedly, prior to the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad); Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 406 ITR 150 (Ker); CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 32 & 43/JAB/2021 Mukesh Kalway v. Asstt. DIT Mohine (supra), wh…

Mukesh Kalway, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…the due date specified u/s. 36(1)(va), even as, admittedly, prior to the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad); Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 406 ITR 150 (Ker); CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 32 & 43/JAB/2021 Mukesh Kalway v. Asstt. DIT Mohine (supra), wh…

Jabalpur Motors Ltd, Jabalpur vs. Asstt Director of Income Tax CPC Bangalore., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 22/JAB/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), wherein, noticing, 2 | P a g e Jabalpur Motors Ltd. v. Asstt. DIT inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a), the same could not be decided on me…

Mukesh Kumer Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. DCIT-Circle1(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 54/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Nema, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 53 & 54/JAB/2022 (AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20) Mukesh Kumar Agrawal v. Dy. CIT wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u…

Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. DCIT- Circle 1(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 53/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Nema, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 53 & 54/JAB/2022 (AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20) Mukesh Kumar Agrawal v. Dy. CIT wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u…

M/S R S Cargo, Satna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Processing Centre, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 12/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…the due date specified u/s. 36(1)(va), even as, admittedly, prior to the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad); Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 406 ITR 150 (Ker); CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in vie…

M/S Srbh Ebguneering & Equipment Pvt Ltd Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Maihar Distt Satna(M.P), Satna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT Cir Katni, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 10/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a), the same could not be decided on merits. The decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts ho…

Ultra Clean and Care Services Pvt. Ltd, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 44/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur25 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021, dated 18/11/2021), wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a), the same could not be decided on…

Bhupendra Nath Pandey, Varanasi vs. ACIT, R - 03, Varanasi

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

ITA 31/VNS/2021[2018-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2016

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Nath Pandey Assistant Director Of Income 6-159/27, Kashi Enclave V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Colony, Pahadiya Sarnath, Processing Center , Varanasi-221007, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Acit, Range-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Ajfpp1273J (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…like to refer to order in writ petition passed by Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Private Limited v. DCIT in WP no. 5264 of 2020, WMP No. 6461 of 2018, vide order dated 23.10.2018 (reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.), wherein Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court decided this issue in favour of Revenue . However, subsequently, the said decision of Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court was challenged by the tax-payer before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court by filing writ appeal no. 2854 of 2018 and CMP No. 23727 of 2018 and the Div…

Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Ltd., Varanasi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 29/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…like to refer to order in writ petition passed by Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Private Limited v. DCIT in WP no. 5264 of 2020, WMP No. 6461 of 2018, vide order dated 23.10.2018 (reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.), wherein Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court decided this issue in favour of Revenue . However, subsequently, the said decision of Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court was challenged by the tax-payer before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court by filing writ appeal no. 2854 of 2018 and CMP No. 23727 of 2018 and the Div…

Lawkush Sharma, Sonebhadra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (5), Sonebhadra

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

ITA 23/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K.R.Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…like to refer to order in writ petition passed by Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Private Limited v. DCIT in WP no. 5264 of 2020, WMP No. 6461 of 2018, vide order dated 23.10.2018 (reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.), wherein Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court decided this issue in favour of Revenue . However, subsequently, the said decision of Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court was challenged by the tax-payer before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court by filing writ appeal no. 2854 of 2018 and CMP No. 23727 of 2018 and the Div…

M/S Rugs Mart, Varanasi vs. DCIT, Circle - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

ITA 21/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.N.Jaiswal,AdvocateFor 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

…like to refer to order in writ petition passed by Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Private Limited v. DCIT in WP no. 5264 of 2020, WMP No. 6461 of 2018, vide order dated 23.10.2018 (reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.), wherein Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court decided this issue in favour of Revenue . However, subsequently, the said decision of Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court was challenged by the tax-payer before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court by filing writ appeal no. 2854 of 2018 and CMP No. 23727 of 2018 and the Div…

378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (409 ITR 225) — Cited in 67 Judgments | BharatTax