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

DCIT, Cir-1, Durgapur vs. M/S. Dgp Steel Star Engg. Pvt.Ltd., Durgapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 553/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय गगग, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 553/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT, Circle-1, Durgapur.........................................Appellant Vs. M/s. DGP Steel Star Engg. Pvt. Ltd.....….................Respondent [PAN: AABCD 0084 F] Appearances: Department represented by: Sh. P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R. Assessee represented by: Sh. Amit Agarwal, Adv. Date of concluding…

Chanakya Enterprises, Shivamogga vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 617/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Chanakya Enterprises, Vs. ITO, Pearlite Complex, NT Road, Ward – 1 and TPS, Shivamogga – 577 201. Shimoga. PAN : AAEFC 7133 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue. Date of hearing : 21.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 22.06.2023, passed under section 250 of…

Coronation Cigar Co., Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Taxcircle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1728/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.1728/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Coronation Cigar Co. 63, Mg Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaefc-3151-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle -17(1) 1St Floor, Kautiliya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 051. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Falee Bilimoria & Furquan Ahemad Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/Shri Falee Bilimoria &For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…i Prashant Mahajan representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that now the issue is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Limited Vs. CIT,448 ITR 518(SC). He prayed for upholding the impugned order and dismissing appeal of the assessee. 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides, examined the orders of authorities below and have considered the decision on which the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has placed reliance. 6. This appeal by the assessee emanates from the or…

Rajaram Shankarlal Sonagra, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1953/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…st date, as prescribed in the respective statute, which resulted into making the disallowance/addition of Rs.2,89,343/- u/s 36(1) (va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has laid down the dictum that payment towards Employees’ contribution on account of PF/ESIC made after the 3 Rajaram ShankarlalSonagra due date as prescribed under the relevant statutes, is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, by concluding as under: “52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the stat…

The ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 210/IND/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit-1(1) M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Indore Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Midc, Vs. Chakan, Pune, Maharastra (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcb2304E Revenue By Shri Ankit Guttani & Yash Daga, Ars Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT-1(1) M/s. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Indore Plot No.A-43, Phase-II, MIDC, Vs. Chakan, Pune, Maharastra (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) PAN: AABCB2304E Revenue by Shri Ankit Guttani & Yash Daga, ARs Assessee by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 03.07.2022 of Commissioner of Incom…

Smt. Vasanthi Padmanabha Sherugar, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 545/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sridharan P, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2019-20 Smt. Vasanthi Padmanabha Sherugar, Vs. The DCIT, Sri Girija Venkata Nilaya, Circle – 1, Near Vijayalakshmi Talkies Torannagallu, Bellary. Bellary – 583 123. PAN : BCNPS 7166 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sridharan P, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 18.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This appeal at the insta…

M/S Tarun Construction Company, Ward No.24, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Suratgarh vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 109/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH ‘DB’, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 (Through Virtual Mode) M/s. Tarun Construction Co., Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward No. 24, Near Bhagat Singh Ward-1(1), Sriganganagar. Chowk, Suratgarh. PAN: AAIFT5316J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.A. Revenue by : Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR Date of hearing : 18.09.2023 Date of pronouncement: 21.09.2023 ORDER These appeals are by the assessee against two separate orders, passe…

M/S Tarun Construction Company, Ward No.24, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Suratgarh vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 108/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Solapur Dcc Bank Employees Co- Operative Society Limited, Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3), Solapur

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 713/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 713/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Solapur Dcc Bank Employees Co-Op Society Ltd., 46 Vistarit Imarat, Yogeshwar Complex, Solapur Zilla Madhyawarat Bank, Navi Peth Solapur – 413001 Pan: Aabas9454N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P

…facts and circumstance, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO found solidified by the Ld. NFAC in an appeal by placing reliance on binding judicial precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. Vs CIT & Ors’ reported in 448 ITR 518. For equi-reasons we see the present disallowance is no-more res-integra, consequently the actions of tax authorities left flawless. As a result, the ground number 1 to 3 remains legless to make any difference in the present appeal, ergo stands dismissed. ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 7 Solapur DCC Bank Employees Co-op Society Ltd., ITA No.713/PUN/2023 A…

Vishash Agarwal, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dibrugarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 39/GTY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.39/Gty/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vishesh Agarwal…………………..……....….........…..........….…… Appellant C/O Assam Pushpak Travel Agency, Makum Road, Tinsukia, Assam – 786170. [Pan: Aghpa7072R] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dibrugarh……………..….…..…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumendu Sekhar Das, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.03.2020 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’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.39/GTY/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vishesh Agarwal…………………..……....….........…..........….…… Appellant C/o Assam Pushpak Travel Agency, Makum Road, Tinsukia, Assam – 786170. [PAN: AGHPA7072R] vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh……………..….…..…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Soumendu Sekhar Das, DR, appeared on behalf of the re…

Ask Wealth Advisors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1904/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1904/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ask Wealth Advisors Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Birla Aurora, 16 Level, 400020. Office Floor 9, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca9124M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shreyam B. Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 11.06.2022 For Ay. 2018-19. 2. This Is Second Round Before This Tribunal. It Is Noted That This Captioned Appeal Of Assessee Was Partly Allowed In The First Round By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30.09.2022. However, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 298/Mum/2023 In The Light Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Decision In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (448 Itr 518). Therefore, This Appeal Is Adjudicated Afresh. The Main Grievance Of Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee’S Contribution Made Towards Pf/Esi To The Tune Of Rs.12,18,871/-.

For Appellant: Shri Shreyam B. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

…of assessee was partly allowed in the first round by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2022. However, the same has been recalled in MA No. 298/Mum/2023 in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (448 ITR 518). Therefore, this appeal is adjudicated afresh. The main grievance of assessee is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of employee’s contribution made towards PF/ESI to the tune of Rs.12,18,871/-. 3. After hearing both parties and from perusal of the records, it is discerned that the CPC Bangalore had passed the intimatio…

Promise Manpoer Services Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(2), Delhi

ITA 302/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra[A.Y. 2018-19]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

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

…On perusal of the grounds of appeal we decided to proceed exparte since the grievance 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 M/s. Check Mate Services Private Limited 448 ITR 518. 4. There is no dispute that there was a delay in depositing the employees contribution. 5. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts mentioned in the paper book and the case laws relied upon the assessee mentioned therein. On a thoughtful consideration we find that none of the case laws relied upon are relevant after the decision…

Rama Construction Company, Delhi vs. DCIT, Spl. Range-12, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshi Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

…e specified act. The contention of the Counsel that the amount has been deposited before the due date of filing of the return is of no use as this quarrel has been now well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. in 440 ITR 518. Respectfully following the same, the appeal is dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.09.2023. (ASTHA CHANDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 19/09/2023. Pooja/-…

Antony Commercial Vehicle Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1704/MUM/2021[2018 -19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)

…aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned DR submitted that the issue arising in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC). 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the payment towards employees’ contribution to P.F. and E.S.I.C., after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute is not allowable as a deduc…

ACIT, Circle 49(1), Delhi vs. Richa & Co., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed subject to our directions contained in para 8 above

ITA 2354/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K V S R Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and both the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the issue is now covered in favour of the Revenue by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate 2 Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). The Ld. AR submitted that in some cases, the delay of 1 or 2 days occurred because ‘due date’ of deposit fell on Sunday as per details furnished before us:- Particulars Amount Due Date Date of Deposit Delay Due date Day ESI 123181 15.10.2017 16.10.2017 1 day Sunday ESI 1585775 15.10.2017 16.10.2017 1 day Sunday PF 535744 15.10.2017 16.10.2…

On Door Concepts P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 13/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…yees Contribution to PF & ESI. 3. We have heard the Ld. AR and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. At the outset we note that this issue is now covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 448 ITR 518(SC) wherein, it has been decided in favour of the revenue in Para 51 to 55 as under: “51. The analysis of the various judgments cited on behalf of the assessee i.e.,CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur…

On Door Concepts P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 12/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

7 Horses Hospitality LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 332/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa

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

…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 5 7 HORSES HOSPITALITY LLP VS ITO, WARD 1 (1), JAIPUR apply for determination of deductibility of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI. The releva…

The Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nagaur vs. ITO, Wad-1, Nagaur

ITA 65/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH :DB (VIRTUAL HEARING AT NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Nagaur Central ITO, Ward-1, Nagaur Cooperative Bank Ltd., 1, NCCB Bank, Gandhi Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ACT, Chowk, Nagaur ITO, National e-Asessment PIN: 341001 Centre, Delhi. (PAN:AAAAT7574R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : N O N E Respondent by : Shri Rajiv Mohan, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Thi…

P P Telecell Marketing Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2849/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Us By 374 Days. The Assessee Had Filed Condonation Petition

Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER P. P. Telecell Marketing DCIT Pvt. Ltd. Circle-14(1) C/o Ombir Panwar & Co. Vs. New Delhi FF-17, First Floor Cross River Mall Karkardooma, Delhi-110 092 PAN-AACCP 7628J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. C.S. Anand, Advocate and Mr. Ombir Kumar Panwar, CA Respondent by Mr. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/08/2023 Date of Pronouncement 11/09/2023 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH AM: This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Co…