Calcutta in CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd.

43 Taxmann.com 396High Court2014#420 most cited

What is Calcutta in CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd. authority for?

Employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI, if paid by the assessee before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), is an allowable deduction under section 43B. No distinction is drawn between employer's and employee's contributions for the purpose of section 43B.

214

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. Vijay Shree Ltd. · 43 Taxmann.com 396 · Section 43B · Section 36(1)(va) · employees' contribution PF ESI · provident fund ESI deduction · payment before 139(1) due date · allowable deduction welfare funds · employer employee contribution · PF ESI payment income tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234D

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing Calcutta in CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd.

M/S S.R.Batliboi & Associates LLP, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 237/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.237/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S S.R. Batliboi & Associates Llp………................……............…..….. Appellant 3Rd Floor, Bloc B, 22, Camac Street, Kolkata. [Pan: Achfs9118A] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bangalore....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Ghosh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 31, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 07, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, S.R. Batliboi & Associates Llp ("The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Dated 21St Dec 2021 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Nfac [“Cit(A)"], Delhi (Received By The Appellant On 21St Dec 2021) Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act'") On The Following Grounds Which Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc ("Ao") & Cit(A) Has: General 1. Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Computing Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 1,18,67,86,431 As Against Income Of Rs. 1,18,63,50, 198 Offered To Tax By The Appellant In Return Of Income For The Subject Assessment Year; Ex-Parte Order, Non-Grant Of Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.237/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s S.R. Batliboi & Associates LLP………................……............…..….. Appellant 3rd Floor, Bloc B, 22, Camac Street, Kolkata. [PAN: ACHFS9118A] vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances by: Shri D. Ghosh, FCA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : August…

Mansoor Aiyaz Ebrahim, Chennai vs. Assistant Dirctor of Incometax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 622/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 Vijay Shree Ltd. (43 Taxmann.com 396; 06.09.2011). Thus, pre-dominant view of majority of Hon’ble High Court is in assessee’s favor wherein it was held that the Employees’ Contribution paid by the assessee before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has b…

Mansoor Aiyaz Ebrahim, Chennai vs. Assistant Dirctor of Incometax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 621/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 Vijay Shree Ltd. (43 Taxmann.com 396; 06.09.2011). Thus, pre-dominant view of majority of Hon’ble High Court is in assessee’s favor wherein it was held that the Employees’ Contribution paid by the assessee before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has b…

Tonglit Autogistic Private Limited, Chennai vs. Asst Director of It, CPC Income Tax Department, Banglore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 566/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh. S (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 Vijay Shree Ltd. (43 Taxmann.com 396; 06.09.2011). Thus, pre-dominant view of majority of Hon’ble High Court is in assessee’s favor wherein it was held that the Employees’ Contribution paid by the assessee before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has b…

M/S. Jsw Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /CIT/Dy/ACIT/Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, subject to the observations made/ directions given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Om Prakash Kant

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘F’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 241/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s JSW Cement Ltd……….......................................Appellant [PAN: AABCJ 6731 B] Vs. Addl.CIT/Dy. ACIT, Mumbai..................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Rakesh Joshi, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. S N Kabra, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : May17th, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : August 12, 2022 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The pres…

Jitendra Kumar Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 65/RAN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RANCHI” BENCH: RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. Nos. 64 & 65/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, JSR (PAN: AEUPS 1901 A) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 14.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 For the Appellant Shri R.R. Mittal, CA For the Respondent Shri Pranob Koley, Sr. D.R ORDER Per Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: These two appeals are preferred by the assessee against two separate orders passed by National Faceless Appeal Centr…

Jitendra Kumar Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 64/RAN/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RANCHI” BENCH: RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. Nos. 64 & 65/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, JSR (PAN: AEUPS 1901 A) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 14.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 For the Appellant Shri R.R. Mittal, CA For the Respondent Shri Pranob Koley, Sr. D.R ORDER Per Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: These two appeals are preferred by the assessee against two separate orders passed by National Faceless Appeal Centr…

M/S Neo Tech Engineering, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 88/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Y.K Mishra, AR- for Sl. No.1, 2, 7 & 8For Respondent: S/Shri G.N Singh, DR & P.K Mishra, DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…ry Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) v. CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) vi. CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) vii. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) viii. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) ix. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as employees contribution to PF and ESI, as both are covered u/s 43B of the Act. 11. Before parting qua the aforesai…

M/S Amalgamations Repco Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 559/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R,Vijayaraghvan (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

…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 Vijay Shree Ltd. (43 Taxmann.com 396; 06.09.2011). Thus, pre-dominant view of majority of Hon’ble High Court is in assessee’s favor wherein it was held that the Employees’ Contribution paid by the assessee before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has b…

Aradhana Investments Ltd, Kolkata vs. CPC(ACIT, Cen. Cir. 2(1), Kol., Bangalore

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

ITA 132/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.132/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Aradhana Investments Ltd…......................................…..............….……….Appellant 5, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071. [Pan:Aaeca1808K] Vs. Cpc (Acit Cent. Cir-2(1), Kolkata).............……........……............…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 18, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 18, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.12.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40ASection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.132/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Aradhana Investments Ltd…......................................…..............….……….Appellant 5, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071. [PAN:AAECA1808K] vs. CPC (ACIT Cent. Cir-2(1), Kolkata).............……........……............…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : Jul…

Vishwa Industrial Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir (1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 145ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…ITA No. 39/KOL/2022 A.Y. 2018-2019 Vishwa Industrial Co. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.39/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vishwa Industrial Co. Limited,....................................................Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [PAN: AABCV0296K] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,........................................Respondent Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: Shri N.S. Saini, Advo…

DCIT, CC -3 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Talentpro India Hr Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 459/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

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

…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 Vijay Shree Ltd. (43 Taxmann.com 396; 06.09.2011). Thus, pre-dominant view of majority of Hon’ble High Court is in assessee’s favor wherein it was held that the Employees’ Contribution paid by the assessee before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has b…

Central Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 201/KOL/2022[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2022AY 1995-96

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 201/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 1995-96 Central Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd…………................Appellant [PAN: AABCC 8240 N] Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.........................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Smt. Puja Somani, CA, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : June 6th, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : June 28th, 2022 ORDER Pe…

Tewari Warehousing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Asst.DCIT(CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 331/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Tewari Warehousing Adit(Cpc), Bengalore Co. Pvt. Ltd. 6, Old Goragacha Road, Vs. Hoboken Depot, P.O. Brace Bridge, Kolkata – 700 088. Pan: Aadct 3802 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Vikash Surana, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.07.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Adjustment So Made By Ao Cpc, Bangalore Was Outside The Scope Of Section 143(1) Of The It Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance U/S 36(1)(Va) Made By Ao, Cpc Bangalore Vide 143(1) Intimation Rs. 22,86,639/- Being Employee’S Contribution To Pf & Esi Delayed Under Relevant Act, Although Same Paid Before Due Date U/S 139(1) Of The It Act. 3. For That The Amendment In Section 36(1)(Va) R.W. 43B Is Applicable From 01.04.2021 Onwards & Not Retrospective. 4. Non Credit Of Tds As Per 26As Rs. 1,46,75,366/-, Credit Allowed In Intimation 143(1) Rs. 1,38,91,444/- Page 4 Of Intimation. Besides Tds Deducted By Below

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Surana, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH “B”, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 TEWARI WAREHOUSING ADIT(CPC), Bengalore CO. PVT. LTD. 6, Old Goragacha road, Vs. Hoboken Depot, P.O. Brace Bridge, Kolkata – 700 088. PAN: AADCT 3802 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Vikash Surana, CA Respondent by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR Date of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2022 O R D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against…

Gurudev Motors Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 490/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (C.A)-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

…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 Vijay Shree Ltd. (43 Taxmann.com 396; 06.09.2011). Thus, pre-dominant view of majority of Hon’ble High Court is in assessee’s favor wherein it was held that the Employees’ Contribution paid by the assessee before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has b…

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. ITO. Non Corp Ward 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 444/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan(C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 Vijay Shree Ltd. (43 Taxmann.com 396; 06.09.2011). Thus, pre-dominant view of majority of Hon’ble High Court is in assessee’s favor wherein it was held that the Employees’ Contribution paid by the assessee before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has b…

ITO, Ward1(1), Trichy vs. Anjappar Chettinad Restaurant, Trichy

Appeal is allowed

ITA 443/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan(C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 Vijay Shree Ltd. (43 Taxmann.com 396; 06.09.2011). Thus, pre-dominant view of majority of Hon’ble High Court is in assessee’s favor wherein it was held that the Employees’ Contribution paid by the assessee before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has b…

Anjappar Chettinad Restaurant Adayar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Cop Ward-15(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 442/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 Vijay Shree Ltd. (43 Taxmann.com 396; 06.09.2011). Thus, pre-dominant view of majority of Hon’ble High Court is in assessee’s favor wherein it was held that the Employees’ Contribution paid by the assessee before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has b…

Sri Mookambika Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, Madurai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 425/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Balakrishnan (for assessee)For Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 Vijay Shree Ltd. (43 Taxmann.com 396; 06.09.2011). Thus, pre-dominant view of majority of Hon’ble High Court is in assessee’s favor wherein it was held that the Employees’ Contribution paid by the assessee before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has b…

Sahana Clothing Company Private Limited, Dindigul vs. PCIT, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 417/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 Vijay Shree Ltd. (43 Taxmann.com 396; 06.09.2011). Thus, pre-dominant view of majority of Hon’ble High Court is in assessee’s favor wherein it was held that the Employees’ Contribution paid by the assessee before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has b…