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 367,154 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.

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)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…

Salvation Outsourcing Solution Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 881/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Salvation Outsourcing Solution Vs Dcit, Pvt.Ltd., 204, Triveni Complex, Cpc, E-10/11/12, Jawahar Park, Bengaluru. Laxmi Nagar, Near Heera Sweets, New Delhi-110045. Pan-Aapcs7922R Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Salvation Outsourcing Solution vs DCIT, Pvt.Ltd., 204, Triveni Complex, CPC, E-10/11/12, Jawahar Park, Bengaluru. Laxmi Nagar, Near Heera Sweets, New Delhi-110045. PAN-AAPCS7922R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Om Parkash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 10.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement 18.01.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 is directed against the order of National Facel…

M/S Pagro Frozen Foods Private Limited, Mohali vs. DCIT, CPC//ITO-Ward-2(3), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…o. 1, the assessee company has not deposited the employees' contribution within the due date which is prescribed under the said statute i.e. Provident Fund and ESIC. This issue is dealt by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 wherein the issue is decided in favour of the revenue, without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd.(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.). But the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court In case of Pr, CU vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09…

Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt.Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT, CPC/ DCIT Circle -6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Filing Of Return Of Income.” 3. The Ld. Ar Inviting Attention To The Impugned Order

For Appellant: Shri Akshun Gupta,CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 43B

…o. 1, the assessee company has not deposited the employees' contribution within the due date which is prescribed under the said statute i.e. Provident Fund and ESIC. This issue is dealt by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 wherein the issue is decided in favour of the revenue, without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd.(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.). But the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court In case of Pr, CU vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09…

Senator Travels Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Itd, CPC, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 327/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Senator Travels Pvt.Ltd., Vs Itd, 2K, Dcm Building, 16, Cpc, Barakhamba Road, Bengalore. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabcs2702B Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…. 324/Del./2017 dated 25/07/2019 in the case of M/s Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd vs ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi. The Hon'ble ITAT has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi In the case of CIT vs Bharat Hotels Ltd (2019) 410 ITR 417 (Del). The relevant para of ITAT decision is reproduced as under: "8. Before proceeding further we would like to go through the relevant provisions contained u/s 36(l)(va) of the Act which are extracted for ready perusal as under :- "36. (I) The deductions provided for In the following clauses shall be allowed In respect of the matters dealt with…

Active Group Securitas, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1287/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

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

…ntra, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed these submissions and 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:- “Having regard to the specific provisions of the Employees‟ 8. 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…

Active Group Securitas, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1286/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

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

…ntra, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed these submissions and 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:- “Having regard to the specific provisions of the Employees‟ 8. 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…

Sugandh, Moradabad vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sugandh, Vs Itd, Jawahar Market, G.M.D.Road, Cpc, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001. Bengaluru. Pan-Aaefs7109J Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2021

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

…ntra, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed these submissions and 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:- “Having regard to the specific provisions of the Employees‟ 8. 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…

Excel Phosphates Private Limited, Meerut vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Excel Phosphates Pvt.Ltd., Vs Adit, 195-196, Shatabdi Nagar, Delhi Cpc, Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250103 Bengaluru. Pan-Aacce3927B Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2021

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

…ntra, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed these submissions and 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:- “Having regard to the specific provisions of the Employees‟ 8. 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…

Dinesh Chandra Semwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…has decided the issue in Atom Extrusions Ltd. case qua employers contribution as per section 43B(b) of the Act and not qua employees contribution u/s 36(1 )(va) of the Act. 11. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 417 (Delhi) (supra) decided the identical issue qua delayed deposit of employees contribution on account of PF & ESl against the assessee by holding that assessee would be entitled to deduction in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act to the extent if the employees contribution on account of PF & ESI is deposited on or before the due date, and the em…

Abhay Shrivastva, Faridabad vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengalurur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1289/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Abhay Shrivastva, Vs Dcit, 501, Sears Vth Floor, Sector-86, Cpc, Faridabad, Haryana-121007. Bengaluru. Pan-Bgjps08499B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Gurjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.12.2021

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

…ntra, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed these submissions and 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:- “Having regard to the specific provisions of the Employees‟ 8. 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…

Kuduma Labour Contract, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Kuduma Labour Contract, Vs. Ito, No.69/1, 35Th Main, 7Th Cross, Ward – 4(3)(2), Btm Layout 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Aajfk 5289 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajashekar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 23.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,71,810/-. In An Intimation Dated 22.02.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs.14,77,428/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Rajashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
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…

M/S. Anubis Detective & Guarding Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2) Through the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Anubis Detective & Guarding Vs. Ito, Services Private Limited, Ward – 1(1)(2) Through No.37, 1St Floor, 9Th B Cross, Dcit, Wilson Garden, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 027. Bengaluru. Pan : Aafca 4501 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,53,696/-. In An Intimation Dated 16.10.2019 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 12,50,435/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
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…

M/S. Methods (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Methods (India) Private Limited, Vs. 1. Dcit, #4A, Kiadb Industrial Area, Circle – 4(1)(2), Hosakote Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 562 114. Pan : Aabcm 8680 N 2. Cpc, Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.11.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. In An Intimation Dated 29.06.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 46,87,690/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
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…

B R S Precision Manufacturing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. B. R. S. Precision Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Private Limited, Central Processing Centre, No.19, 5Th Floor, Shivashankar Plaza, Bengaluru. Richmond Circle, Lalbagh Road, Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aaecb 5550 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 23.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. In An Intimation Dated 16.10.2019 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 11,81,345/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
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…

Devender Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…o. 1, the assessee company has not deposited the employees' contribution within the due date which is prescribed under the said statute i.e. Provident Fund and ESIC. This issue is dealt by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 wherein the issue is decided in favour of the revenue, without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd.(20io) 321ITR 508 (Del.). But the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09…

Volantis Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 617/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Volantis Technologies Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, 940, 2Nd Floor, 16Th Main, Btm 2Nd Stage, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 076. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 1855 F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 02.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,25,384/-. In An Intimation Dated 16.06.2021 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs.9,11,370/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Decision Of Supreme Court In Cit Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 Itr Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Page 4 of 6 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…

Megneil Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 616/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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…

Megneil Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 615/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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…

M/S. Krishna Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 612/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Krishna Enterprises, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.2 & 23, Next To Lido Mall, Central Processing Centre, Swamy Vivekananda Road, Bengaluru. Milkman Street Junction, Halasuru, Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aabfk 6998 C Assessee By : Shri. Ashok Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 20.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,09,380/-. In An Intimation Dated 29.02.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 1,93,643/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Ashok Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
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…