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 366,470 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. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Dir of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1556/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O. RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

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

…). In the appeal filed by the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2018-19 (ITA No. 240/Mum/2022) identical issue was decided in the favour of the Appellant. However, recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1: 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC)/ Civil Appeal No. 833 of 2016, held that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employees’ contribution to PF/ESI, and the due date specified under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the…

Legacy Global Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 846/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arvind S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 Legacy Global Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director of 333, Thimmaiah Road, Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 052. CPC, Bengaluru. PAN: AABCL 5654P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Arvind S., CA Respondent by : Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 25.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner…

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 799/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 798 & 799/Bang/2022 Assessment years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Pivotree Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The ADIT, CPC / [formerly known as Bridge SGI Deputy Commissioner of Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.], Income Tax, # 244, 1st Floor, Fortune Summit Circle 1(1)(1), Business Park, HSR 6th Sector, Bangalore. Near Silk Board, Bommanahalli S.O. Bengaluru – 560 068. PAN: AAFCB 7948C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Manjuna…

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 798/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Ramakrishnappa Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 795/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 Ramakrishnappa Nagaraj, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.100/2, Chowdeshwari Nilaya, of Income Tax, Singanayakanahalli Post, Circle 6(3)(1), Opp. Sai Jyothi Layout, Bangalore. Yelhanka Hobli, Bangalore – 560 064. PAN: AEIPN 1056R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri K R Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy…

Sara Trans Industries, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1550/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shiv P. SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1550/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) Sara Trans Industries 202, Building no.3, ……………. Appellant Nav Jivan Commercial Lamington Road, Mumbai Central Mumbai 400 008 PAN – ABVFS9322B v/s Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Assessee by : Shri Shiv P. Singh Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair Date of Hearing – 30/08/2022 Date of Order – 20/10/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present a…

Bangalore Dor Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 826/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavankumar

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 Bangalore Dor Tech Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of # 53, First Floor, Ajay Towers, Income Tax, CPC / 100 ft. Road, Defence Colony, AO, Circle 1(1)(2), Indiranagar, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 038. PAN: AACCB 4183A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Arvind Reddy, CA Respondent by : Shri Gudimella V P Pavankumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 19.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmav…

Kwality Restaurant, Kanpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 34/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)For Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 194CSection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant v. The CIT(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur TAN/PAN:AAAFK8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None (Adjournment application) Respondent by: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date of hearing: 18 10 2022 Date of pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.9.2021 of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 115 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an…

M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 45/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. v. The DCIT 17-A, Co-operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:AAACG5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent by: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date of hearing: 18 10 2022 Date of pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 1.3.2021 of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of five days in fili…

Lalbaba Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 275/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & 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 KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 275/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Lalbaba Industrial Corporation vs ADIT, CPC, Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. PAN: AABCL 6851 A Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 22.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2024 For the Assessee None For the Revenue Mr. P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM: This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 is directed against the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals,…

M/S Secure Offset Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, Cen.Cir. 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 607/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blem.A. No. 51/Kol/2022 A/O I.T.A. No. 607/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Secure Offset Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 3(2), Kolkata Vs Ew-3, Dhulagarh Sankrail Howrah - 711313 [Pan : Aancs9669P]

For Appellant: Shri Varat Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 51/Kol/2022 A/o I.T.A. No. 607/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. Secure Offset Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 3(2), Kolkata Vs EW-3, Dhulagarh Sankrail Howrah - 711313 [PAN : AANCS9669P] I.T.A. No. 607/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Secure Offset Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of EW-3, Dhulagarh Vs Income Tax, Central Circle – Sankrail 3(2), Kolkata Howrah - 711313 [PAN :…

Ajit Kumar Setha, Angul vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/CTK/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.168/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2019-2020) Ajit Kumar Setha, Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar Kulad, Kulad Nalco Nagar, Angul-759145 Pan No. :Apmps 9448 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA No.168/CTK/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2019-2020) Ajit Kumar Setha, Vs DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar Kulad, Kulad Nalco Nagar, Angul-759145 PAN No. :APMPS 9448 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing…