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 367,368 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

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd., ( Now Known As Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1297/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “ C ” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No. 1297/Ahd/2014 & Assessment Year(s): 2004-05 The Dy.CIT M/s. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. Central Circle-2(1) (Now known as M/s. Intas Ahmedabad Vs Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) 203, Chinubhai Centre Ashram Road Ahmedabad PAN: AABCD 0197 M Revenue Represented: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee Represented: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 16-01-2024 Date of pronouncement : 14-02-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER T…

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbaiqqq vs. Assessment Unit NFAC Cetnre ITO, Ministry of Finance Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

ITA 2496/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/w Shri Siddesh

Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 37(1)Section 68Section 92C

…ould not be made in the intimation under section 143(1) as a prima facie adjustment. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) 21. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. With regard to contention of the assessee that adjustment made by way of addition is beyond the scope of section 143(1)(a) of the Act meaning thereby addition/adjustment could not have been made by the CPC by taking refuge of the provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act we notic…

Intelligent Communication Systems India Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 12(C), New Delhi

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

ITA 827/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(va)

…[the Act, for short]. 3. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd 448 ITR 518. 4. However, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that there are some errors in the reporting by the auditors in so far as the due date mentioned in the tax audit report is concerned. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the due date mentioned in the tax audit report is not correct and furnished a chart to buttress his sub…

Kamarhatty Company Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1089/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA डॉ मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अ"नकेश बनज", "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member &Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1089/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamarhatty Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata (PAN: AABCK 2916 K) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ($%यथ") 31.01.2024 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क( "त*थ Date of Pronouncement/ .02.2024 आदेश उ-घोषणा क( "त*थ For the Appellant/ Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA "नधा12रती क( ओर से For the Respondent/ Shri Kiran Chatrap…

Sunbeam Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 48/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 776/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Jankalyan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.,...................Appellant 10, West Ghosh Para Lane, Jagatdal, 24-Parganas (North)-743125, West Bengal [Pan: Aabcj8598E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax........Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Poorva), 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 48/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Sunbeam Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.,.........................Appellant 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan: Aakcs1284P] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax.........Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Poorva), 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107

Section 143(1)Section 263

…ITA No. 776/KOL/2022 (A.Y. 2019-2020) Jankalyan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. & Sunbeam Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 776/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Jankalyan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.,...................Appellant 10, West Ghosh Para Lane, Jagatdal, 24-Parganas (North)-743125, West Bengal [PAN: AABCJ8598E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax........Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Poorva), 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 48/KOL/2023 A…

Jankalyan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 776/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2019-2020

Section 143(1)Section 263

Chaudhry Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CPC Bangalore DCIT - 20(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 217/MUM/2022[2018-19`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri C.V. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…ile complete data alongwith necessary supporting documents in this regard before the AO. 7. Insofar as the payment towards employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC is concerned, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) held that the payment towards employees’ contribution to P.F./E.S.I.C., after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute is not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Thus, the payments towards employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC be examined in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C…

Orrionstars Innovattes P.Ltd, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-5, Panipat

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 156/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

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

…Supreme Court we decided to proceed exparte. 4. The common grievance in all these appeals relates to the addition on account of late deposit of ESI/ EPF. This issue is now well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Check Mate Services Pvt. Ltd. 448 ITR 518 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and th…

Orrionstars Innovates Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 5, Panipat

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 155/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

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

Zenith Weldaids Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Comissioner of Income Tax Appeal (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical

ITA 3536/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahyazenith Weldaids Pvt. Ltd. Cit(Nfac) Vs. C-164, Bs Road, Industrial Delhi Area, Ghaziabad-201 003 Pan No. Aaacz 0626 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg, C.A. & Shri Ankit Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Zenith Weldaids Pvt. Ltd. CIT(NFAC) Vs. C-164, BS Road, Industrial Delhi Area, Ghaziabad-201 003 PAN No. AAACZ 0626 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg, C.A. and Shri Ankit Garg, C.A. Revenue by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 29.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14.09.2023…

Nishant Security and Allied Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-18(3), Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1446/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nishant Security & Allied Vs. Ito Services Private Limited Ward- 18 (3) Wz-98, A/1, Ring Road, Delhi Naraina, New Delhi-110028 Pan No.Aaccn3644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Written Application Respondent By Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/02/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n’ble Supreme Court in favour of the revenue and against the assessee we decided to proceed exparte. 4. The quarrel relating to the delay in deposit of EPF / ESI has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Check Mate Services Private Limited 448 ITR 518 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3170/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usansal Properties & Vs. Acit, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Circle-2(2), 115, Ansal Bhawan, New Delhi 16, Kg Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca0006D Acit, Vs. Ansal Properties & Circle-2(2), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kg Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca0006D Assessee By : Shri R S. Singhvi, Adv Shri Satyajeet Goel, Adv Revenue By: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri R S. Singhvi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer

Section 22Section 36(1)(va)Section 43C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ansal Properties and Vs. ACIT, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Circle-2(2), 115, Ansal Bhawan, New Delhi 16, KG Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACA0006D ACIT, Vs. Ansal Properties and Circle-2(2), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, KG Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACA0006D Assessee by : Shri R S. Singhvi, Adv Shri Satyajeet Goel, Adv Revenue by: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR Date of Hearing 18/01/2024 Date of pronounc…

Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2549/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R S. Singhvi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer

Section 22Section 36(1)(va)Section 43C

Rajesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 44(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 580/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharmarajesh Kumar Vs. Acit A-1/208, Rohtak Road, Circle 44(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aigpk8026L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajesh Kumar Vs. ACIT A-1/208, Rohtak Road, Circle 44(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AIGPK8026L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain, CA Revenue by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 19.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 29.01.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM : This appeal by Assessee against the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) dated 10.01.2023 in regard to AY 2019-20 arising out of an intima…

Concerto Software and Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1854/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Concerto Software & Systems Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 15(1)(2), Unit No. 311/312 313, Building 2, Sector Room No. 483, 4Th Floor, 1, Millenium Business Park, Mahape, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Navi Mumbai-400 710. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcc 4006 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dyaneshwar Patil (Employee on behalf of company)For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Concerto Software and Systems Pvt. Ltd., Dy. CIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Unit No. 311/312 313, Building 2, Sector Room No. 483, 4th floor, 1, Millenium Business Park, Mahape, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Navi Mumbai-400 710. Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AADCC 4006 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dyaneshwar Patil (Employee on behalf of company) Revenue by : Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR : Date of Hearing 24/01/2024 Date of pronouncement : 24/01/20…

Shree Stones Crusher, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 750/JPR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl CIT-DR

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

…employee's contribution to provident fund & ESI was deposited by the assesse after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute. In the decision dated 12.10.2022 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT-1 (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has held that payment towards employee's contribution to provident fund/ESI after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute is not allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision are as under- 51. The analysis of the various judgments cited on behalf of t…

M/S. the Kothari Wheels, Pune vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, Banglore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1420/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

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

…of treating the employee’s share as having the same character as that of the employer’s share, becoming deductible u/s 36(1)(iv) read in the hue of section 43B(b). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has threadbare considered this issue and drawn a distinction between the parameters for allowing deduction of employer’s share and employees’ share in the relevant funds. It has been held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer’s income u/s.2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed only if s…

Gurusamy Aadhinarayanan, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, CPC Bengaluru, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1041/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1041/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 Gurusamy Aadhinarayanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 25, Vignesam Layout, Gandhinagar Ii Ward 1, Pollachi. Extn., Udumalaipet, Tiruppur 642 126. [Pan:Aclpa5394G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Kumaresh, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 25.05.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 12 Days In Filing The Appeal & Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N. Kumaresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G., Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1041/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 Gurusamy Aadhinarayanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 25, Vignesam Layout, Gandhinagar II Ward 1, Pollachi. Extn., Udumalaipet, Tiruppur 642 126. [PAN:ACLPA5394G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri N. Kumaresh, CA ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupa…

Jiwanram Sheoduttrai Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Range - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 741/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 741/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jiwanram Sheoduttrai Industries vs ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. AAACJ 7420 L Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 26.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.01.2024 For the Assessee None For the Revenue Mr. P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM: This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ap…

DCIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi vs. Wah Holidays Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2339/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit Vs. Wah Holidays Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Circle – 27 (1) 121, Floor, Sec-44, New Delhi Gurgaon Pan No.Aabcw0776D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Prakash Nath Baranwal, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Sunil Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/01/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 68

…In so far as the delay in deposit of employees contribution towards ESI is concerned this issue is now well settled in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Check Mate Services Private Limited 448 ITR 518. Respectfully following the same ground No.4 is allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* Date:- .01.2024…