Bombay in CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

53 Taxmann.com 141High Court2015#615 most cited

What is Bombay in CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. authority for?

The Bombay High Court holds that employees' contributions to provident fund and ESIC, though paid beyond the due dates specified in the respective welfare legislations, are allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if they are paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act.

160

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. · 53 Taxmann.com 141 · Section 36(1)(va) · employees contribution to PF and ESIC · late payment of provident fund · deduction of employees contribution · due date for filing return of income · Section 139(1) · Section 2(24)(x) · Section 43B · allowability of deduction · Bombay High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 132Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(va)section 34(1)(iv)section 143(1)(a)(iv)section 34(1)employees contribution to pfsection 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 36(1)(iv)section 43bsection 2(24)section 36(1)section 43

Judgments citing Bombay in CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

ITO 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. 3S Integrated Facility Management Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2018–19 is dismissed

ITA 2492/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA No. 2492/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2019–20) 35 Integrated Facility The Income–Tax Officer, management Pvt. Ltd. Ward 13(1)(1), 108, Ruby Industrial Estate, Room no. 225, Chincholi Bunder Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, M.K. road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 064 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACZ8848E Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri B.K. Bagchi, DR Date of hearing: 11.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This a…

ITO 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. 3S Integrated Facility Mangement Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2018–19 is dismissed

ITA 2491/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA No. 2492/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2019–20) 35 Integrated Facility The Income–Tax Officer, management Pvt. Ltd. Ward 13(1)(1), 108, Ruby Industrial Estate, Room no. 225, Chincholi Bunder Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, M.K. road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 064 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACZ8848E Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri B.K. Bagchi, DR Date of hearing: 11.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This a…

Asm Marketing Private Limited, Chennai vs. Aoc.Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 144/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Ganesh Babu (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…

Asm Marketing Private Limited, Chennai vs. Aoc.Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 143/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Ganesh Babu (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…

Veritas Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2457/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…1 ITA No.2456 & 2457/Mum/2021 A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Veritas Infratech Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2456 & 2457/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) Veritas Infratech Pvt. Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1) Ltd., 8th Floor K. Raheja Aayakar Bhavan, Prime, Sagbaug Road, Mumbai - 400020 Off. Andheri Kurla Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAFCV0393R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ashok Mehta Respondent by : S.N. Kabr…

Mec Elec Industrial Services Private Limited, Thane vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1858/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ravi K. Mulchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, Sr. A.R. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMAR JIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Mec Elec Industrial ACIT, CPC, Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, 602, Pushpa Mangal Karnataka Complex, Building No.1, Vs. Near Babubhai Petrol Pump, L.B.S. Marg, Thane, Maharashtra- 400 601 PAN: AAFCM3973Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Ravi K. Mulchandani, A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Bharti Singh, Sr. A.R. CIT Date of Hearing : 07.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2022 O R D E R Per Amar Jit Singh, Judicial Memb…

M/S. Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1782/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ DCIT, CPC Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACE1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue by: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of…

Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1781/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ DCIT, CPC Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACE1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue by: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of…

M/S. Flag Security Services, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(1) -3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1924/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Flag Security Vs. Ito Ward-23(1)-3 Services, 101, Navjyot Mumbai Chs, Near Kadamwadi, St. Anthony Street, Vakola, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaff7581M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar Meena
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 436Section 43B

…1 ITA No.1924/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s Flag Security Services Vs. ITO, Ward 23(1)-3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Flag Security Vs. ITO Ward-23(1)-3 Services, 101, Navjyot Mumbai CHS, Near Kadamwadi, St. Anthony Street, Vakola, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAFF7581M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Viraj Mehta Respondent by : Shri Rameshwar Meena Date of Hearing 20.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement 22.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM:…

C R Textile Mills, Athanoor vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 54/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…

Gokul Industries, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 412/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…o.412 & 577/Chny/2021 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…

Vanitha Textiles, Palladam vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 407/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…y Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…

Gokul Industries, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 577/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…o.412 & 577/Chny/2021 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…

M/S Cauvery Stones, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 124/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…

M/S Cauvery Stones Impex Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 123/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…

Amazinf Export Corporation, Palladam vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 99/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…

M/S. Ultracon Structural System Private Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Corporate Circle - 3(2), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 97/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…

Mudhra Fine Blanc Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 96/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…

Mookambika Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, Madurai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 95/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Balakrishnan (Director) & ShriFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…

Sri Mookambika Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, Madurai, Tamil Nadu vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 94/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Balakrishnan (Director) & ShriFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. A similar view favorable to assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (49 Taxmann.com 29; 09.12.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141; 14.10.2014); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (188 Taxman 265 23.12.2009); Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. (88 Taxmann.com 455; 16.03.2016); Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in CIT V/s Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 54; 20.05.2013); Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT V/s V…