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

M/S. Shivamm Industries, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 393/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Shivamm Industries, The Dy.Commissioner Of Plot 76, Arihant Heights, Sector Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, No.25, Pradhikaran Nigdi, Pune. Pune – 411044. Pan: Aaefs 0458 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee I.E. Shivamm Industries For A.Y. 2013-14 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Of Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 21.03.2023 Emanating From Assessing Officer’S Order Under Section 154 Of The Act Dated 22.03.2021. The Ground Of Appeal Are As Under : “1. The Order Dated 21/03/2023 Bearing No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051048828[L] Passed Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Hon’Ble Cit[Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Is Excessive, M/S.Shivamm Industries [A]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36

…gy 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…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Tracks & Towers Infratech Private Limited(Part IX), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1515/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal

Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…ion on account of belated payment of PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing of the return is concerned, the ld.DR submitted that the issue now stands decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT reported in 448 ITR 518 where it has been clearly held that payment of PF and ESI if not made before the due dates mentioned in the respective PF and ESI Act cannot be allowed as a deduction. 14. The ld.counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) in allowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. He submitted that the assessee fil…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Tracks & Towers Infratech Private Limited(Part IX), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1514/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal

Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 135/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of The Filing Of Return During The Year. 2. That The Petitioner Raves To Add, Alter Or Amend All Or Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Rathore (C.A.)For Respondent: None a

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…ll as on facts, it is requested that the addition may be deleted and obnlige.” Per contra, the ld. Sr. DR is absent and but forwarded the decision 7. of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT-1, 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 with a request to consider the same. 8. We have heard the ld. AR and perused the materials available on record including the case laws cited by both the parties. In this case, it is noted that the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.2,82,166/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that payments of employees…

Braham Parkash Yadav, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 439/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

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

…disallowance are evidently not paid in time the same is disallowable and for that he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Hon’ble 5 Braham Parkash Yadav 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 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record including the case laws cited by both the parties. In this case, it is noted that the AO disallowed the amount of Rs. 10,93,988/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that payments of employees contribution towards EPF and…

S N Thakur, Bangalore vs. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 332/BANG/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Smt. Sumangala Ranga, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowed. 4. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that the issue relating to depositing of employees’ contribution of ESI & PF came for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 440 ITR 518, wherein held that for assessment year prior to 2021-22, non- absentee clause u/s 43B of the Act could not apply in case of amounts, which are held in Trust as was case of employees’ contribution which are deducted from their income from the employees’ income and was held in Trust by assessee employer as per section 2(24)(x) of the Act, thus, sai…

S. P. C. Infrastructure P Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle 4, Jaipur

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

ITA 121/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

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

…1 SPC INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. VS DCIT,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 121/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 cuke S.P.C. Infrastructure Private Limited DCIT, Circle-4,Jaipur. C-74, Amba Bari, Jaipur Vs. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCS 8079 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by…

Brisk India Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 514/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

…23 had dismissed the instant twin appeals since raising the sole identical issue of disallowance(s) of ESI/PF u/sec.36(1)(v)(a) of the Act in light of hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). The assessee thereafter appears to have filed it’s as many miscellaneous applications M.A.Nos.320 and 319/PUN./2023 inter alia, pleading therein that it’s 6th substantive ground in ITA.No.513/PUN./2023 in assessment year 2017-2018 and 6th to 10th substantive grounds in ITA.No.514/PUN./2023 in assessment year 2018-2019 remained un-adjudic…

Brisk India Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 513/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

Bijan Behari Biswas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 774/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’, KOLKATA [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 774/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bijan Behari Biswas Vs ITO, Ward-10(3), Kolkata . PAN: ADRPB 4871 C Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 16.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 24.05.2023 For the Assessee Shri G. Banerjee, AR For the Revenue Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT/DR ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM: This appeal in ITA No. 774/Kol/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19 is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Ap…

Umberto Ceramics Int P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1661/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon

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

…hearing, none appeared on 2. behalf of the Appellant, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal stand covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). 3. We would first take up appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the order, dated 28.07.2021, passed by the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2017-18, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Appellant against the Order, dated 17.12.2019, passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the…

S.M.S Exports, Delhi vs. CIT-24 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1838/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmas.M.S Exports Vs. Cit-24 C-174, Okhla Industrial New Delhi Area Phase-1, New Delhi-110 020 Pan No. Aabfs 9700 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.05.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…pport assessee has relied on various decisions. 7. Before us, Learned DR supported the order of lower authorities and submitted that in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. CIT & others (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) no interference to the order of lower authorities is called for. 8. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present appeal is with respect to the disallowance of delayed deposit of employee’s contribution of PF & ESI in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. We find that Hon’ble Supr…

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 437/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a

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

…re the due date of filing of return of income. M/s Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CPC 7. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chechmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 218 DTR 401 confirmed the adjustment made by CPC. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which is extracted in below; “1. The assessee filed the return along with tax audit report for AY 2018-19 at total income of Rs.19.97 crores, for AY 2019-20 at total income of Rs.1…

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 436/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a

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

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 435/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a

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

M/S Kiritikunj Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

ITA 128/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…ITA No. 128/KOL/2022 A.Y. 2018-2019 M/s. Kirtikunj Automobiles Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 128/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 M/s. Kirtikunj Automobiles Pvt. Limited,.....Appellant Room No. 213, 2nd Floor, 156A, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata-700013 [PAN: AADCK6013F] -Vs.- Assistant Director of Income Tax,............Respondent Centralised Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bangalore-560500, Karnataka Appearances by: N o n e, appeared on behalf of the assesseee Smt. Ranu Bisw…

A G Enviro Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 110/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 110Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2019&20½

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Potdar izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण eqacbZ ihB ß,Þ eaqcbZ Jh fodkl voLFkh] U;kf;d lnL;],oa Jh ,l- fjQkSj jgeku] ys[kkdkj lnL; ds le{k IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” BENCH BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk-vk-la- 110eaqcbZ@2022 ¼fu-oa- 2019&20½ ITA No.110/MUM/2022 (A.Y.2019-1220 A G Enviro Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd, 1403/04, Dev Corpora, Near Cadbury Junction, Khopat, Thane-400 601 ..... vihykFkhZ/Appellant PAN No. AAFCA1820L cuke Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC Bangalore ..... izfroknh/Respondent Karnataka vihykFkhZ }kjk@Appellant by : Shri G…

Naveen Chandra Bhatt, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2023AY 2019-20

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

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Naveen Chandra Bhatt, ITO Ward 28(1) E-48/4, Okhla Industrial Area-II, New Delhi New Delhi 110020 vs. PAN ALPPB 2384 N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.05.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.11.2022 of the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. As per grounds of appeal, the a…

M/S Stewart Holl (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 362/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…ITA No. 362/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Stewart Holl (India) Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar,Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 362/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/s. Stewart Holl (India) Limited,............Appellant Camellia House, 14. Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-700019 [PAN: AAECS3091C] -Vs.- AsistantDirector of Income Tax,............Respondent CPC, Bangalore, Centralised Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bangalore-560500, Karnataka Appearances by: Shri Soumik Roy and Shri Tanmay Dutta, A.R., appear…

Pooja Metal Processors Private Limited, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1301/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Pooja Metal Processors Pvt Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.89, Cpc, Dlf Industrial Estate Phase I, Bangalore. Anangpur, Faridabad – 121 003. Pan: Aaacp9084G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Ms Princy Singhla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.1301/Del/2021 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1034567083(1) Dated 02.08.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 17.05.2019 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund/Employees’ State Insurance Scheme (Pf/Esi) Which Was Not Deposited Till The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Acts, But, Were Duly Remitted To The Account Of The Government On Or Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income U/S 139 (1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CAFor Respondent: Ms Princy Singhla, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 32Section 43

…he Act. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd vs CIT reported in 448 ITR 518. It is not in dispute that the employee’s contribution to PF and ESI were deposited by the assessee to the Government account beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective acts but well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. We find that the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had settled the ent…