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.

Machine Tools India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 406/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey]

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

…1 ITA Nos.405, 406 & 407/Kol/2021 A.Ys 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Machine Tools India Ltd. आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] ITA Nos. 405 to 407/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19& 2019-20 M/s. Machine Tools India Ltd Vs. ACIT,Cir-2(1), Kolkata PAN: AABCM9740R Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 02-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement 10 -12-2021 For the Appellant Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, ld.AR For the Respondent Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Add.…

Machine Tools India Ltd, Kolkata vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 405/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey]

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

…1 ITA Nos.405, 406 & 407/Kol/2021 A.Ys 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Machine Tools India Ltd. आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] ITA Nos. 405 to 407/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19& 2019-20 M/s. Machine Tools India Ltd Vs. ACIT,Cir-2(1), Kolkata PAN: AABCM9740R Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 02-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement 10 -12-2021 For the Appellant Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, ld.AR For the Respondent Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Add.…

Kingfisher Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 327/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 139(1)Section 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. Shri Jayanta Khanra 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 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 employees’ contribution since it was not deposited within the due date as prescribe…

Kingfisher Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 326/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 139(1)Section 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. Shri Jayanta Khanra 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 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 employees’ contribution since it was not deposited within the due date as prescribe…

Kingfisher Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 325/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 139(1)Section 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. Shri Jayanta Khanra 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 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 employees’ contribution since it was not deposited within the due date as prescribe…

Bharat Security Agency, Kolkata vs. Assessing Officer, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 299/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey]

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

…1 ITA Nos.298& 299/Kol/2021 A.Ys 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s.Bharat Security Agency आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] ITA No. 298&299/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19&2019-20 M/s. Bharat Security Agency Vs. AO, CPC, Bangalore PAN: AAIFB5295N Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 02-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement 10 -12-2021 For the Appellant ShriSushilPranshukha, ld.AR For the Respondent ShriParthaPratim Barman, Add. CIT, ld. DR ORDER Per Bench Both these appeal…

Bharat Security Agency, Kolkata vs. Assessing Officer, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 298/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey]

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

…1 ITA Nos.298& 299/Kol/2021 A.Ys 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s.Bharat Security Agency आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] ITA No. 298&299/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19&2019-20 M/s. Bharat Security Agency Vs. AO, CPC, Bangalore PAN: AAIFB5295N Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 02-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement 10 -12-2021 For the Appellant ShriSushilPranshukha, ld.AR For the Respondent ShriParthaPratim Barman, Add. CIT, ld. DR ORDER Per Bench Both these appeal…

Jjr Spin Textiles LLP, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 364/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 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. Shri Jayanta Khanra 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 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 employees’ contribution since it was not deposited within the due date as prescribe…

Bhawarlal Alok Kumar, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 34, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 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. Shri Jayanta Khanra 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 has decided this issue in favour of the revenue and the Delhi Tribunal 6 A.Y. 2019-2020 Bhawarlal Alok Kumar 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 employees’ contribution since it was not d…

The Millennium Enterprises, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 592/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. The Millennium Enterprises, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.27, Mathru Shree Nilaya, Central Processing Centre, 1St Floor, 6Th Cross, Bengaluru. Balaji Layout, Vajarahalli, Thalagattapur, Bengaluru – 560 062. Pan : Aalft 2849 P Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29.09.2021 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.19,05,500/-. In An Intimation Dated 06.03.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 6,18,512/- 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. Pranav Krishna, 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…

Kunamneni Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 549/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kunamneni Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Sy. No.72/B, Jaraganahalli Mastrusi Central Processing Centre, Arcade, 2Nd Floor, J. P. Nagar, Bengaluru. 6Th Phase, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaeck 4698 R Assessee By : Shri. H. V. Gowthama, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25.08.2021 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.40,00,810/-. 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.9,38,950/- 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. H. V. Gowthama, 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…

Aankit Granites Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 480/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Aankit Granties Limited, Vs. Ito, No.886, 19Th Main, Iv Cross, Ward – 1(1)(3), Btm Layout Ii Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aabca 5821 D Assessee By : Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 30.07.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2014-15 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,99,306/-. In Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2016 Issued U/S.143(3) Of The Act, The Ao Added A Sum Of Rs. 5,99,686/- 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. Cuddapah Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)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…

Prakashpai Kochikar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Prakash Pai Kochikar, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.680, I Floor, 46Th Cross, 100 Feet Ring Central Processing Centre, Road, 5Th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 041. Pan : Adwpp 7348 F Assessee By : Shri. Prakash Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.17,18,440/-. In An Intimation Dated 12.04.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 15,31,406/- 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. Prakash Hegde, 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…

Vastra Overseas Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Vastra Overseas Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.17/18, Bangalore International Pubic Central Processing Centre, Schoo Road, Chikkalasandra, Uttarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Aaccv 4829 R Assessee By : Shri. Puneet Oberoi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 31.07.2021 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.12,56,350/-. In An Order Dated 06.01.2020 Issued U/S.154 Of The Act, On An Intimation U/S. 143(1) Dated 28.02.2019, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Confirmed The Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.84,179/- 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. Puneet Oberoi, 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…

Amar Samanata, Bishnupur vs. CPC, Bangalore, ITO, Wad-26(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 317/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 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. Shri Jayanta Khanra 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 has decided this issue in favour of the revenue and the Delhi Tribunal 6 A.Y. 2018-2019 Amar Samanta 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 employees’ contribution since it was not deposited…

Laurels (India) Impex (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Bengluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 938/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Laurels (India) Impex (P) Ltd. Vs Adit Rra Taxindia D-28, South Extension, Bengaluru, Part-1, New Delhi Karnataka Aaacs9311B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shrey Jain, Adv Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021

Section 143(1)Section 2(23)(x)

…ned the addition. 5. Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 417 (Hon'ble High Court). 7. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on records. From the record, it is seen that before Ld.CIT (A), it was contended by the assessee that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing Rs. 11,42,843/- on account of late deposition of Employees Contribution of Provident Fund and ESI which as per 4 the…

Sarajit Bhattacharyya, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-25(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 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. Shri Jayanta Khanra 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 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 employees’ contribution since it was not deposited within the due date as prescribe…

Manipur Motors, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 32, Kolkata(As Per Pin Code Jurisdiction) Earlier ACIT, Circle-9, Imphal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 436/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 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. Shri Jayanta Khanra 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 has decided this issue in favour of the revenue and the Delhi Tribunal 6 A.Y. 2019-2020 Manipur Motors, Kolkata 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 employees’ contribution since it was no…

M/S. Empower Guarding Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 559/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Empower Guarding Services Private Limited, Vs. Acit, No.69, 2Nd Floor, Lic Colony, Woc Road, Central Processing Centre, Near Shankar Matt, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aacce1898 H Assessee By : Smt. Kusuma Yathish Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.08.2021 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.5,82,050/-. In An Intimation Dated 04.03.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 4,23,182/- 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 Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Smt. Kusuma YathishFor 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 2and 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…

Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. II(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 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. Shri Jayanta Khanra 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 has decided this issue in favour of the revenue and the Delhi Tribunal 6 A.Y. 2018-2019 Mohan Motor Business (P) Limited 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 employees’ contribution since…