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

Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 830/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.I.Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT
Section 36(1)(va)

…n; in the instant case the amounts being paid before the filing of the Return ought to have been allowed in full. 2.3 The CIT(A) erred in relying on the order of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (409 ITR 225) and failed to see that the same is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench. Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing. 3. 3. The case was heard through video conferencing. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO without due examination, mechanically, has disallowed the prior period expenses. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in uphol…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…) has mainly relied upon Single Judge decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in writ petition in the case of M/s.Unifac Management Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in WP No. 5264 of 2020, WMP N. 6461 of 2018 , vide order dated 23.10.2018 reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.). 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 :- 8 -: Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court was pleased to grant permission to the…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…to order in writ petition passed by Single Judge of Hon’ble :- 63 -: 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 th…

Selva Gold Covering Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 693/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 11.11.2019
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

…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 "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य के सम' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14 v. M/s.Selva Gold Covering Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of No.1127, Ribbon Building, Income-tax, Big Bazaar Street, Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641 001. Coimbatore-641 018. [PAN: AADCS0688Q] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent) : Mr.N.Arjunraj , Adv. अपीलाथ+ क. ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms.R.Anitha, JCIT ,-यथ+ क. ओर से /Re…

Hindustan Apparel Industries, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 215/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.214 & 215/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बिाम/ Hindustan Apparel Acit 21(3), Industries, Piramal Chambers, Unit No. 4, Lower Parel, Mumbai V. Bradys Glady Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400025 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaafh0455J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. Biyani Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 214 & 215/Mum/2018, Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 23.10.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-33/Rg.21/260/2016-17 & 846/2016- 17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Assessment Order(S) Dated 03.03.2016 & 28.12.2016 Respectively Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) Both U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

…ort Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170(Guj.) while adjudicating this issue has held in favour of Revenue . Similar was the view of Hon‟ble Madras High Court on this issue in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Private Limited v. DCIT reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.), wherein the issue was decided in favour of Revenue . We are bound to follow judgment of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court vis-a-vis judgment of non jurisdictional High Court. Thus, Respectfully following decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Limited(supra), we allow the claim of the assessee and hold…

Hindustan Apparel Industries, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 214/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.214 & 215/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बिाम/ Hindustan Apparel Acit 21(3), Industries, Piramal Chambers, Unit No. 4, Lower Parel, Mumbai V. Bradys Glady Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400025 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaafh0455J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. Biyani Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 214 & 215/Mum/2018, Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 23.10.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-33/Rg.21/260/2016-17 & 846/2016- 17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Assessment Order(S) Dated 03.03.2016 & 28.12.2016 Respectively Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) Both U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

…ort Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170(Guj.) while adjudicating this issue has held in favour of Revenue . Similar was the view of Hon‟ble Madras High Court on this issue in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Private Limited v. DCIT reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.), wherein the issue was decided in favour of Revenue . We are bound to follow judgment of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court vis-a-vis judgment of non jurisdictional High Court. Thus, Respectfully following decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Limited(supra), we allow the claim of the assessee and hold…

Anand Ispat Udyog Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1580/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sarang ShahFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nce cannot be made by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 5. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) (P) Ltdvs. DCIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Madras) wherein it was held that the scope of 43B and section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution. He also relied upon the CBDT Circular No.22/2015 [F.No.279/Misc…