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

Yudo Hot Runners India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi Present Juridiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ITA No.670/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yudo Hot Runners India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Flat No.A-402, Shrinand Nagar-II, Income Tax, Vejalpur, Circle – 4(1)(1), Vs. Ahmedabad - 380 051 Ahmedabad. [PAN – AAACY 1303 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Suresh Gandhi, CA Revenue by Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2024 O R D E R This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated…

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 467/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. Nos. 466 & 467/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Deepak Industries Ltd. vs DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata PAN: AAACD 8676 J Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 03.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2024 For the Assessee Mr. Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA For the Revenue Mr. B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee directed against two separate orders dated 04.08.2022 and 03.08.2022 by ld.…

Ansal Housing Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 438/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaansal Housing Ltd, Vs. Acit, 606, 6Th Floor, Indra Circle-1(1), Prakash, 21, Barakhamba New Delhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca0377R Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Sudarshan Roy, Adv Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 31/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr DR

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

…of income. The ld. AR also submitted the chart of employee‟s contribution to PF / ESI being remitted for various months on various dates. We find that the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT reported 448 ITR 518 had settled the entire dispute to rest by deciding it in favour of the revenue by observing 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 fo…

Kathleen Confectioners, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-32, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1187/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate & Shri SonuFor Respondent: Shri Loviesh Shelley, JCIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kathleen Confectioners DCIT, Circle-32, Kolkata. 12, Free School Street, Kolkata- Vs. 700016. (PAN: AADFK5396E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate & Shri Sonu Agarwal, FCA Respondent by : Shri Loviesh Shelley, JCIT, DR Date of Hearing : 08.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. Addl. JCIT(A)…

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 466/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

Vaco Binary Semanties LLP, Haryana vs. Circle 4(1), Haryana

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

ITA 327/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Sood, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36

…favour of the Revenue in as much as the there is no dispute that the employees contributions towards Provident Fund is deposited beyond the prescribed due date and therefore the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd 448 ITR 518 squarely apply. It would be pertinent to refer to the most relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the impugned quarrel which read as under: “32. The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as Sections 32 - 37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various head…

Gennex Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 357/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Srinarayan Toshniwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 357/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Gennex Laboratories Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN No. AABCP3078M] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri Srinarayan Toshniwal, AR (Through virtual mode) रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y. DR सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date of hearing: 19/12/2023 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncemen…

Harbir Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon

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

ITA 541/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Also Denied The Relief Vide Order Dated

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.541/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 M/s. Harbir Singh ITO, C/o CA M R Sahu Ward 1(4), House No. : 651, 1st Floor, Vs. Gurgaon Sector-10A Nr. G.D.Goenka Public School Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 PAN : AFRPA3023P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. M.R.Sahu, CA Respondent by Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement 22/12/2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of L…

Ghibellines Security Solutions Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (OSD), New Delhi

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

ITA 1399/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of It Act & Therefore Are Allowable Under Law. 2. Without Prejudice To Above, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Adjustments As Per The Intimation U/S 143(1) Ignoring The Proposition Of Law That Notwithstanding The Disallowance Made U/S 36(1)(Va), Such Expenditure Is Eligible For Deduction U/S 37(1) Of It Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete, Modify/ Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal With The Permission Of The Hon’Ble Appellate Authority.”

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1399/Del/2023, A.Y. 2020-21 M/s. Ghibellines Security Solutions ACIT(OSD), Limited New Delhi Property No. 32-A, Vs. Ground Floor, Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony, South Delhi, New Delhi-110065 PAN : AACCG1980A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Suresh Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement 22/12/2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal filed by the Assessee…

JCIT, Special Range - 1, New Delhi vs. Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1806/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40Section 40a

…the Assessing Officer on account of employees contribution to the Provident Fund deposited beyond the due date. This issue is now well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the case of Checkmate Services 448 ITR 518. 22. Respectfully following the same, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are reversed. Addition is sustained. Ground No. 3 is allowed. 23. Ground No. 4 relates to the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,05,875/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act. 24. It has been strongly contended that during the year under consideration, the assessee…

Manoj Kumar Mishra, Saharpura, Sindri, Jharkhand-828122 vs. DCIT Circle-1, Dhanbad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 15/RAN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, RANCHI [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 15/RAN/2023 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs DCIT, Circle-I, Dhanbad . PAN: ACWPM 8323 N Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 20.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2023 For the Assessee None For the Revenue Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR ORDER PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 is directed against the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income- tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [her…

M/S Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Co., Junagadh vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle - 1 (1), Rajkot - Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad) BEFORE HRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.65/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Company, Income Tax (Appeal), Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Circle-1(1), Junagadh-362001 Rajkot [PAN No.AAABFC3586E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Samir Jani, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2023 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAU…

M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commiissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 267/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Jaika Automobiles & Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nagpur. Finance Pvt. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj3178K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj4462A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K. P. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’) Dated 15.03.2022 & 23.12.2021 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.267/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)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…

M/S. Jaika Automobiles and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 193/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

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

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 605/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). It is not imperative to repeat the facts of the case and the case laws cited by both the parties. The Bench has observed that the recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT-1, 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 held that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employee’s contribution to PF/ESI and the due date specified u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act shall 6 TELECRATS INDIA PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR apply for determination of deductibility of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI. The relevant…

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 574/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Geekay Facility Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 145/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Geekay Facility Management Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai Private Limited Income Tax Office, G-11, Tulsani Chambers, Maharshi Karve Rd, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccg1483G Assessee By : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, Ca Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 13.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. AR

Section 224Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM Dy. Commissioner of Income Geekay Facility Management Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai Private Limited Income Tax Office, G-11, Tulsani Chambers, Maharshi Karve Rd, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCG1483G Assessee by : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, CA Revenue by : Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 13.12.2023 Date of pronouncement : 18.12.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA No. 145/…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Private Limited, Vki, Jaipur

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

ITA 561/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). It is not imperative to repeat the facts of the case and the case laws cited by both the parties. The Bench has observed that the recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT-1, 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 held that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employee’s contribution to PF/ESI and the due date specified u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI. The relevant portion of the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb Jaipur vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Private Limited, V K I Jaipur

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

ITA 560/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). It is not imperative to repeat the facts of the case and the case laws cited by both the parties. The Bench has observed that the recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT-1, 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 held that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employee’s contribution to PF/ESI and the due date specified u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI. The relevant portion of the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

Sm Workforce Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. ITO, Ward, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 426/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 2Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…not imperative to repeat the facts of the case and the case laws cited by both the parties. The Bench has observed that the recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined in the case of Checkmate Services 6 SM Workforce Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT-1, 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 held that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employee’s contribution to PF/ESI and the due date specified u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI. The relevant portion of the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in…