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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd.?

486 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (410 ITR 417), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(1)(a)(ii), Section 36(1)(va), Section 43B.

CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (410 ITR 417)

Shri Dutt India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. AO, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 610/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Shri Dutt India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.O., Cpc, Bengaluru (Pan: Aarcs9172 P) Appellant Respondent

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

…of the lower authorities and uphold the claim of deduction on this issue. 14. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. ShriJayantaKhanra supporting the decision of authorities below has contended that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotel Ltd. in 410 ITR 417 7 I.T.A. No. 610/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Shri Dutt India Pvt. Ltd. has decided this issue in favour of the revenue and the Delhi Tribunal has followed the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotel (supra) and upheld the action of the Department disallowing the amount deposited by the assessee company in respect of the empl…

Sri. P. Harshavardhana Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 736/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Puttireddi Harshavardhana Reddy, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.401/4 14Th Main, Venkateshwara Lyt Central Processing Centre, Madiwala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Aebpr 8378 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor 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…

Devarayapatana Thimmappa Paramesha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 727/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Devarayapatana Thimmappa Paramesha, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.311, Block B3, Sobha Opal, 39Th Cross, Tax, 18Th Main, Jayanagar 4Th Block, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 041. Bengaluru. Pan : Acopp 0450 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, 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…

Sri, Ramachandra Naveen, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Ramachandra Naveen, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.4140 Sam Chambers, 80 Feet Road, Central Processing Centre, Girinagar, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 085. Pan : Acvpn 6688 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, 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…

Vishal Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 511/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, 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…

Vishal Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 510/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, 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…

Shree Shyam Designs Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Shree Shyam Designs Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.50/1A/514/2/1, Shri Rajarajeshwari Central Processing Centre, Arcade, 2Nd Floor, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Veerannapalya, Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan : Aakcs 8509 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwar Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(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…

Trans India Holidays Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Banglore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1591/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43b

…d down in Circular no. 495, dated 22-9-1987 and para 90, page 16 of the finance minister speech Budget 1987. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in following the judgement of Bharat Hotels Limited (2019) 410 ITR 417 (Delhi) without appreciating the fact that after Bharat Hotel Limited Judgement, there is another judgement of Honourable Delhi High Court in case of M/s Pro Interactive Services (India) Private Limited, ITA No. 983/2018 dated 10.09.2018 where the Honourable Delhi High Court following the judgement of ITO vs. AIMIL Ltd (2010) 321 ITR 508 allowed…