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 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 366,470 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 43b section 2(24)section 36(1)section 43 section 36 section 28 section 139(1)section 139 section 143(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd.

M/S H.S.Mercantile Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/KOL/2021[2019-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2019-10

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 M/s. H.S. Mercantile 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 it w…

Singhania & Sons (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 412/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 14ASection 250

…d that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotel below has contended that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotel 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 Ltd. in 410 ITR 417 has decided this issue in favour of the revenue and the Delhi 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 has followed the order…

Balaji Motors, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

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. 2017-2018 Balaji Motors 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 deposite…

D.P.Security & Allied Service, Kolkata vs. E-Assessment, Centralized Procesing Center, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/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 D.P. Security & Allied Service 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…

Harenath Singh, Howrah vs. DCIT, CPC, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/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 Harenath Singh 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 deposit…

Shioji Singh HUF, Howrah vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/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 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 du…

Mount Victoria Granites Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 557/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Mount Victoria Granites Limited, Vs. Dcit, No.120 Hoodi Apartments, Central Processing Centre, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Aabcm 1663 P Assessee By : Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwara Hegde, Ca 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 27.09.2021 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.22,46,814/-. In An Intimation Dated 30.04.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 13,50,284/- 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. C. A. Madhukeshwara 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 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…

Pachouli Wellness Clinic LLP, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ITO vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) 2. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 3. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) 4. Sagun Foundry (P.). vs. CIT[2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 5. CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 295/410 ITR 417 (Delhi) 6. Order dated 01.07.2021 in the case of Raodways Private Limited [TS-510- ITAT-2021 (HYD)], ITAT, Hyderabad. 7. Order dated 31.05.2021 of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 1626/Del/2020 in the case of Azamgarh Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. 8. Salzgitter Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 128 taxman.com 192[Hyderabad Tribunal] 9. M/s Crescent Roadways P…

Naveen Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1011/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Global Groupware Solutions Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), New Delhi, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, New Delhi-110002

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1000/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Peregrine Guarding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 5968/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Vs Peregrine Guarding Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-7, Rz-1B, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi. New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aadcp2498P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. I P S Bindra, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Mangotia, Adv. Date Of Hearing 20.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2021

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(X)Section 37(1)

…5/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of EPF & ESIC contribution. 6. Ld.CIT DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 Taxmann.com 295 (Delhi). He submitted that Ld.CIT(A) therefore, was not justified in deleting the addition. 7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 and also in the case of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India)…

Uv Garments (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1955/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Uv Garments (P.) Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O-Ssar & Associates, Ca, 4852/24, Cpc, Ff, Ansari Road, Near Sanjivan Hospital, Bengaluru. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaacu8398Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sachin Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…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…

Ssurya Resorts Private Limited, Dharamshala vs. DCIT, CPC/ACIT, Circle, Palampur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income Under Section 139(1), Hence It Is An Allowable Expenditure As Per The Judgment Of Honorable Sc In The Case Of Pr. Cit Vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 84 Taxmnn.Com 185

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 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…

A1 Force Security Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. ACIT, Cir. -1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 445/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 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…

M/S M.S.Sons J, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 44, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

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…

Art Rubber Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

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…

A.C.Paul Agricultural Co.(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ADIT, (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/KOL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

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…

Nsib Security Services (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 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 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 du…

Talbot and Co., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

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

…ties and uphold the claim of deduction on this issue. 6 A.Y. 2018-2019 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…

Jiya Exim (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

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…