CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd.

410 ITR 417High Court2019#146 most cited

What is CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI, if paid beyond the due date prescribed by the respective welfare fund statutes, are not allowed as a deduction under the Income Tax Act.

486

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. · section 36(1)(va) · section 43B · employee contribution deduction · provident fund ESI late payment · due date of fund · disallowance of employee contributions · section 2(24)(x)

Also reported as

103 Taxmann.com 295

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)(ii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 43b(b)section 36(1)(va)section 2(24)(x)section 43bsection 2(24)section 36(1)section 43section 36section 28section 139(1)section 139section 143(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd.

M/S C.D. International, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 99/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…contribution in respective fund account on date as prescribed inexplanation to section 36(1)(va), disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in 9. the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provide…

M/S C.D.International, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 98/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…contribution in respective fund account on date as prescribed inexplanation to section 36(1)(va), disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in 9. the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provide…

M/S Classic Traders, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Ward-2(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 97/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…contribution in respective fund account on date as prescribed inexplanation to section 36(1)(va), disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in 9. the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provide…

Satish Prakash Agarwal, Agra vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 95/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…contribution in respective fund account on date as prescribed inexplanation to section 36(1)(va), disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in 9. the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provide…

Surender Kumar, Haryana vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1045/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1045/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Surender Kumar, Vs Adit, M Sahu & Associates, Ca, House No. Cpc, 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Near Union Bangalore Bank Of India, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agupk6911C Assessee By : Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2022

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…of Eagle Trans Shipping & Logistics (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 324/Del/2017 order dated 25.07.2019 wherein the issue has been ruled against the assessee based on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417.  Order of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1312/Del/2020 dated 26.08.2021 wherein the issue has been ruled against the assessee based on the judgments of Hon’ble Madras High Court, Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Kerala High Court. The said orders are examined which are as under: 5 Surender Kumar…

Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 599/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Karnataka State Electronics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Ttmc “A” Block, Cpc, Bengaluru. Bmtc, Shanthinagar, K. H. Road, Bengaluru–560 027. Pan : Aabck 6661 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…istinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill 2021 was only declaratory / clarificatory in nature and there therefore was applicable with retrospective effect by necessary intendment of deeming nature…

Alert Detective Force, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Alert Detective Force, Vs. Dcit, B 376, 9Th Cross, Peenya 1St Stage, Central Processing Centre, Ring Road, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Abcfa 0594 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh G, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh G, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…istinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill 2021 was only declaratory / clarificatory in nature and there therefore was applicable with retrospective effect by necessary intendment of deeming nature…

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 334/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…1 ITA Nos.332 to 334/Kol/2021 PNP Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri Manish Borad, AM ] I.T.A. Nos. 332 to 334/Kol/2021 Assessment Years:2017-18 to 2019-20 PNP Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AACCP2392R) Circle-27(1), Holdia Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 22.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 02.03.2022 For the Appellant Shri P. K. Agarwalla, FCA For the Respondent Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Bench: All these three appeals have been preferred b…

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 333/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…1 ITA Nos.332 to 334/Kol/2021 PNP Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri Manish Borad, AM ] I.T.A. Nos. 332 to 334/Kol/2021 Assessment Years:2017-18 to 2019-20 PNP Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AACCP2392R) Circle-27(1), Holdia Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 22.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 02.03.2022 For the Appellant Shri P. K. Agarwalla, FCA For the Respondent Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Bench: All these three appeals have been preferred b…

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 332/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…1 ITA Nos.332 to 334/Kol/2021 PNP Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri Manish Borad, AM ] I.T.A. Nos. 332 to 334/Kol/2021 Assessment Years:2017-18 to 2019-20 PNP Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AACCP2392R) Circle-27(1), Holdia Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 22.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 02.03.2022 For the Appellant Shri P. K. Agarwalla, FCA For the Respondent Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Bench: All these three appeals have been preferred b…

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

…eturn of income is filed , as per the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case(supra). However, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has now decided this issue in favour of Revenue in the case of CIT v. Bharat Hotels Limited reported in (2019) 410 ITR 417(Del.) , while impliedly reversing the stand taken in its earlier decision in the case of Aimil Limited (supra). However, the decision in the case of Aimil Limited (supra) was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Judges of Delhi High Court while adjudicating in the case of Bharat Hotels (supra). The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has decide…

Munireddy and Sons, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…istinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill 2021 was only declaratory / clarificatory in nature and there therefore was applicable with retrospective effect by necessary intendment of deeming nature…

Munireddy and Sons, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…istinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill 2021 was only declaratory / clarificatory in nature and there therefore was applicable with retrospective effect by necessary intendment of deeming nature…

Kanthi Agency Networks, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kanthi Agency Networks, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income No.17, 5Th Block, Shivashakthi Road, Tax, Shakthinagara, Centralized Processing Centre, Mysuru – 570 019. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaifk 6664 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…istinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill 2021 was only declaratory / clarificatory in nature and there therefore was applicable with retrospective effect by necessary intendment of deeming nature…

Devi Shanker, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, Karnataka

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…employee’s contribution, and assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) only if the amount so received from employee is credited in specified account within the due date as per the relevant statute. (iii) Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 (Del.) (iv) Hon'ble Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Gujarat)held that where assessee did not deposit employees contribution in relevant fund before the due date prescribed in Explanation to Section 36(1)(va), no deduction would be admissible even though he deposits the same before due date of ITR u/s 43B. (v) Hon'ble MP Hig…

Karni Kehar Security Co-Operative Society Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…employee’s contribution, and assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) only if the amount so received from employee is credited in specified account within the due date as per the relevant statute. (iii) Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 (Del.) (iv) Hon'ble Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Gujarat)held that where assessee did not deposit employees contribution in relevant fund before the due date prescribed in Explanation to Section 36(1)(va), no deduction would be admissible even though he deposits the same before due date of ITR u/s 43B. (v) Hon'ble MP Hig…

Group Zero, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 250/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…employee’s contribution, and assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) only if the amount so received from employee is credited in specified account within the due date as per the relevant statute. (iii) Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 (Del.) (iv) Hon'ble Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Gujarat)held that where assessee did not deposit employees contribution in relevant fund before the due date prescribed in Explanation to Section 36(1)(va), no deduction would be admissible even though he deposits the same before due date of ITR u/s 43B. (v) Hon'ble MP Hig…

Desana Poly Plastic Industries, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 34, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…1 Desana Poly Plastic Industries , AY 2017-18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri Manish Borad, AM ] I.T.A. No. 452/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Desana Poly Plastic Industries Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax, (PAN: AAFFD3744H) Circle-34, Kolkata Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 23.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2022 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC…

Md. Mujibur Rahaman, Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir. 2, Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 381/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…1 Md. Mujibur Rahaman AY 2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri Manish Borad, AM ] I.T.A. No. 381/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Md. Mujibur Rahaman Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AFFPR1448R) Circle-2, Durgapur. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2022 For the Appellant Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC…

Pawan Kumar Janghu, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-34(6), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1545/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Pawan Kumar Janghu, Vs Ito, Ca M R Sahu & Associates, Ca, House Ward-34(6), No.651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Nr New Delhi. Union Bank Of India, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Pan-Aevpj8333C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2022

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

…n appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Sr. DR vehemently submitted that law is clear in this respect and he relied upon the decision of Ld.CIT(A). He further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 Taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue by observing as under:- 8. “Having regard to the specific provisions of the Employees‟ Provident Funds Act and ESI Act as well as the concerned notifications which granted a grace period of 5 days (which appears to have been late withdrawn recently on…