What is Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI can be allowed if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, even if paid after the statutory due date under the respective act.

Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (393 ITR 386)

Q: How many judgments cite Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. v. CIT?

33 judgments on BharatTax cite Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (393 ITR 386), spanning 2017 to 2025.

SIS CASH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 240/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 May 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…der. The detailed arguments of the Ld. AR need to be summarized for reference:- (i) At the time of passing of the order u/s. 143(1) of the Act and even at the time of order u/s. 154 of the Act, the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd., reported in 393 ITR 386 (Patna), held the field since it was the order of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Through this case deduction was to be allowed in case the payments had been made in the Government account before the due date of filing of ROI. (ii) The adjustments made to the order u/s.143(1) through rectification u/s. 154 of the Act, is beyond the scope of se…

K M AUTOMOBILES,KORBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, KORBA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 100/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 100/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 K M Automobiles Plot No.187, Transport Nagar, Korba, Chhatisgarh-495 677 Pan: Aanfk0386L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 100/RPR/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 K M Automobiles Plot No.187, Transport Nagar, Korba, Chhatisgarh-495 677 PAN: AANFK0386L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 23.01.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2023 2 K M Auto…

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 384/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Badaya (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel (JCIT)

Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…Modipon Ltd; and M/s Ekta Agro Industries Ltd (321 ITR 508)[2010](Delhi).  CIT VS George Williamson (Assam) Ltd 284 ITR 619[2006] (Gauhati).  Sagun Foundry Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 78 Taxmann 47[2017] (Allahabad).  M/s Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd Vs CIT (393 ITR 386) [2017](Patna);  CIT VS Alken Laboratories Ltd (Patna), CIT VS M/s Lakhani Rubber Udyog Pvt Ltd (P&H),  Geekay Security Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (101 taxmann.com 192][2019] In the various judgments it was held that the assessee can claim deduction of employee's contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(10)(va) if the payments are made after due date un…

DOLCAS BOTANOSYS PVT. LTD. BIKANER,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE/ACIT, C-1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

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

…s. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) (vii) CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) (viii) Sagun Foundry (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2017] 78 com47 (Allahabad) (ix) Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 393 ITR 386 (Patna) 10 M/s. Dolcas Botanosys Pvt. Ltd. vs ADIT, CPC, Banglore/ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur 11. It may be also worthwhile to submit that CBDT Circular No. 10 / DV / 2013 dated 16.12.2013 in the matter of interpretation of section 40(a)(ia), when there were contrary decisions of High Court issued the Circular stating that where any High Court decid…

NIRMAL KUMAR BARDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 260/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…issed by Supreme Court (2017) 392 ITR (St) 2. There are various other High Court decisions on the issue. CIT Vs. Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) etc. and recent judgement of Patna High Court in Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT (2017) 393 ITR 386. In view of the above Ld. A.O. is wrong and has erred in law in making an addition of Rs. 3,42,412/- to the income of appellant u/s 36 (1) (va) of I.T. Act, 61. In this connection we furthur submit that Ld. A.O. in assessment order relied on the judgement dated 13-03-2010 of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Rajasthan Renewable Energy…

RMC GEMS INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…issed by Supreme Court (2017) 392 ITR (St) 2. There are various other High Court decisions on the issue. CIT Vs. Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) etc. and recent judgement of Patna High Court in Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT (2017) 393 ITR 386 and by Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patel Transporters Ltd. (2015) 153 Taxman 141.. In view of the above Ld. A.O. is wrong and has erred in law in making an addition of Rs. 3,93,122/- to the income of appellant u/s 36 (1) (va) of I.T. Act, 61. In this connection we further submit that Ld. A.O. in assessment order relied on the judgement dat…