How many judgments cite Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

1,392 judgments on BharatTax cite Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (143 Taxmann.com 178), spanning 2022 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(va), Section 143(1), Section 43B, Section 143(3), Section 2(24)(x), Section 139(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

143 Taxmann.com 178Supreme Court of India2022#28 most cited

What is Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

1,392

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Checkmate Services · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · employees contribution to PF · ESI payment · due date for deposit · Section 143(1) disallowance · delayed payment of PF/ESI · Provident Fund · Employee State Insurance · 448 ITR 518 · 143 Taxmann.com 178

Also reported as

448 ITR 518218 DTR 401

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 143(1)Section 43B Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 139(1)Section 250 Section 37(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Chandra Goswami, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi vs. Addl JCIT, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3230/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…iling section 139(1) return. 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue vehemently argues that such a disallowance of ESI/PF claim which is otherwise held as not allowable in light of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has been rightly rejected in the assessee’s case involving section 143(1) processing. It further quotes Woodland (Aero Club) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2025) 178 taxmann.com 207 (Del.) deciding the very issue in it’s favour and against the assessee as well. It could hardly dispute that yet another hon’ble non- jurisdictional high court in Raj Kumar…

Shri. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 736/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Pr.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.105, 196 & 736/Bang/2022 Assessment year : 2018-19 Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.328, Sangeetha Bhavan, of Income Tax, Tippu Sultan Palace Road, CPC / Central Circle 1(4), Kalasipalyam, Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 002. PAN: ABXPS 2039K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Lakshmi S., Advocate Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, Pr.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 10.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025 O R…

Shri. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 196/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Pr.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

Shri. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru

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

ITA 105/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Pr.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6316/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ds PF/ESIC deposited before the due date of filing return was allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. 10. However, subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Ltd. v. CIT-1:[2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC)[12/10/2022] had taken a contrary view and had held that deduction for employees’ contribution towards PF/ESI shall be allowed as deduction only if the deposit is made by the employer on or before the due date specified in the applicable statute in view of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The non- obstante clause under…

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6308/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani

Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…read with Section 43B of the Act (even though it was deposited after the expiry of the statutory time period specified in the applicable statute). However, subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Ltd. v. CIT-1:[2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC)[12/10/2022] had taken a contrary view and had held that deduction for employees’ contribution towards PF/ESI shall be allowed as deduction only if the deposit is made by the employer on or before the due date specified in the applicable statute in view of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The fact that employees’ contr…

Ivtl Infoview Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2916/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2916/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ivtl Infoview Technologies Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, No.2/319, 3F, Corporate Circle Ii(2) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai 600 034. Oggiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 600 097. [Pan: Aaaci 7550A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidhya, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.2916/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) IVTL Infoview Technologies Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax, No.2/319, 3F, Corporate Circle II(2) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai 600 034. Oggiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 600 097. [PAN: AAACI 7550A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क"…

M/S. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6274/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: M/s. Sonali Godbole, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 36(1)(va)Section 41

…ile computing the total income.” I.T.A. No. 6274Mum/2024 2 3. The issue raised vide Ground No. 1, is no more res integra as the said quarrel has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Ground No. 1 is dismissed. 4. Coming to Ground No. 2, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the documents exhibited in the paper book provision written back of Rs.5,43,40,678/- and Rs.6,31,361/- forfeitures, have already been included in the profit of the ass…

Sukiba Management Services Private Limited, Nashik Maharashtra vs. ACIT Circle 1 Nashik, Nashik Maharashtra

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

ITA 1790/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1790/PUN/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sukiba Management Services Private Limited, A27 First Floor, Vasant Market, Canada Corner, Nashik-422002 PAN : AAOCS5497E अपीलार्थी / Appellant Vs. ACIT, Circle – 1, Nashik प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by: Department by : Date of hearing : Date of Pronouncement : Shri Suhas A Vadulekar Shri Arvind Desai 21-01-2025 29-01-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM…

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1014/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Shiv Vegpro Pvt. Ltd., SP-3, RIICO Agro Food Park, Ranpur, Kota . बनाम Vs. The PCIT, Udaipur. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAJCS7629B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) & Shri Hemang Garg…

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА

Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…heard the learned DR as well as the learned AR and considered the relevant material available on record. At the outset, we note that this issue is now covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd vs CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518. Thus, the issue now stands decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) vs. CIT (Supra), wherein it has been held that the employees' contribution to PF & ESI, if not remitted before the due date prescribed in the respective enactments, cannot be allowed as a deduction. Accordingly, the impugned…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1550/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1550/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Lycos Internet Ltd Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacl5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1769/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Lycos Internet Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Pan:Aaacl5827B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Are Two Appeals, One By The Department Against The Order Dated 23/06/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A) & Another By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26/02/2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)

Section 14ASection 263

…heard the learned DR as well as the learned AR and considered the relevant material available on record. At the outset, we note that this issue is now covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd vs CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518. Thus, the issue now stands decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) vs. CIT (Supra), wherein it has Page 8 of 32 ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd been held that the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI, if not remitted before the due date prescribed in the respective enactments, can…

Smt. Usha Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Eagle Hunter Solutions Vs Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax (Appeals)-25 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110016 Pan: Aabce0565E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 36(1)

…1 Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER Eagle Hunter Solutions Vs Commissioner of Income Limited Tax (Appeals)-25 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110016 PAN: AABCE0565E Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Aditya Kumar Garg, Adv Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR and Ms. Neha Chaudhary, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 19/05/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed b…

Shyamal Kundu, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1112/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C' BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय गर्ग, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश मिश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1112/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shyamal Kundu Vs. (Appellant) DCIT, (CPC)/DCIT, Circle - 32(1), Kolkata (Respondent) PAN: AFTPK0421P Appearances: Assessee represented by Department represented by Date of concluding the hearing Date of pronouncing the order : B.K. Agarwal, AR. : Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. DR. : January 8th, 2025 : Ja…

Kinetic Advertising India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6051/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekinetic Advertising India Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax – Circle 16(1), Mumbai 7Th & 8Th Floor, Wing-A, The Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Orb-Sahar, Village Marol, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri East, Mumbai, Sahar P & T Colony S.O., Andheri-400 099 Pan: Aabcp1311M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR. DR.)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Kinetic Advertising India vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Private Limited, tax – Circle 16(1), Mumbai 7th and 8th Floor, Wing-A, The Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve ORB-Sahar, Village Marol, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri East, Mumbai, Sahar P & T Colony S.O., Andheri-400 099 PAN: AABCP1311M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR. DR.) Date of hearing : 15/01/2025 Date of pronouncement : 20/01/2025 O R D E…

Singodwala Warehousing and Logistics Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 1093/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.1093/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2021-22 cuke Singodwala Warehousing and Logistics The ITO, Private Limited Vs. Ward-6(4), Jaipur. 9/16, vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAXCS3662C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Shri…

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the appeal is admitted for hearing

ITA 3854/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

…er, the Id. AR has pointed out that the assessee was not served notice of hearing due to which the assessee was unable to file submissions and evidences showing that the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 143 Taxmann.com 178 is not applicable as the amounts deducted were not on account of ESI and EPF. 4. In any case, since the assessee was not served the notices in due course of events, we allow the appeal for statistical purposes and restore the issues on merits and law, if any, raised by the assessee to the files of ld. CIT(A) to issue a fresh notice and…

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3850/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…f income. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, by applying the ratio in the case of Checkmate Services P Limited, 448 ITR 518 (SC), delivered on 12th October, 2022 and Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) inserted as a clarification in Finance Act, 2021, whereas, during the relevant assessment year, certain Judgments of the High Courts were favoring the appellant on what constitutes the 'due date and these later developments were not available. 3. The appellant craves lea…

Prasad Polyfab, Gandhinagar vs. Ward (1) Income Tax Officer, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1366/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri SN Divetia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr.DR

Section 40Section 43B

…should be deleted Rs.1,73,390/- 4. The issue of disallowance on account of late deposit of ESI/PF raised by the assessee in both the appeals have been put to rest by the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT- (2022) 448 ITR 518(SC) vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers' contribution and employees' contribution required to be deposited by the employer. The first one is the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by…

Prasad Polyfab, Gandhinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward(1), Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1364/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri SN Divetia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr.DR

Section 40Section 43B