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.

Waverley Paints Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1888/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Waverley Paints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1635-A, Gali No.14/15, Cpc, Govindpuri, Bangalore. Kalka Ji, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacw0241J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Somnath Vashist, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .11.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

…de before the due date of filing of the return of income, however, due to non-appearance of the assessee, the ld.CIT(A), relying on various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., reported in 410 ITR 417, upheld the action of the AO on the ground that the assessee failed to deposit the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI before the due dates specified under the said statute. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused th…

Welgrow Hotels Concepts Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18 Welgrow Hotels Concepts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Cpc, B-6, Geetanjali Enclave, Bangalore. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacw5407C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

…in the period of 30days and, therefore, it is barred by limitation. He, however, proceeded to decide the issue on merit. Relying on various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., reported in 410 ITR 417, he held that since the assessee failed to deposit the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI before the due dates specified under the Act, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction of the same. He accordingly upheld the action of the AO. 2 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal…

Vinay Zibbu, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 34(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1866/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Vinay Zibbu, Vs. Acit, D-1/124, 2Nd Floor, Circle-34(1), Sector-16, New Delhi. Rohini, New Delhi. Pan: Aaepz5493N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Priyanshu Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-13, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.14,59,784/- Made By The Ao In The Order Passed U/S 154 Of The It Act By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 2(24)(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act On Account Of Late Deposit Of Employee/Employer Contribution Of Pf & Esi. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Doing The Business Of Security Agency. He Filed His Return Of Income On 27Th October, 2018 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.21,43,950/-. The Cpc, Bangalore In The Order Processed U/S 143(1)(A) Proposed Adjustment Of Rs.14,59,784/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi. The Assessee Filed An Application Stating That The Payments Have Been Duly Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return Of Income. Finally, In The Intimation-Cum-Order U/S 154 Of The Act Dated 15Th June, 2019 The Cpc Bangalore Assessed The Income At Rs.37,53,733/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs.22,93,949/- By Making An Addition Of Rs.14,59,784/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Late Deposit Of Employee/Employer Contribution Of Pf & Esi 2(24)(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Priyanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

…deposit of employee/employer contribution of PF and ESI 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. 4. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), following various decisions including the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 417 (Del) sustained the addition made by the CPC, Bangalore holding that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the IT Act due to failure on his part in depositing the employees’ contribution on or before the due date. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. T…

Gagan Saxena, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1865/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Gagan Saxena, Vs. Acit, H-92/6, Shivaji Park, Circle-22(2), Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Axfps2632E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Priyanshu Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,34,630/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W. Section 2(24)(X) Of The It Act. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In The Business Of Supply Of Manpower. He Filed His Return Of Income On 26Th October, 2018 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.18,25,292/-. The Cpc, Bangalore Vide Intimation U/S 143(1) Dated 17Th May, 2019 Has Processed The Said Return At An Income Of Rs.27,66,590/- By Making Total Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.9,34,630/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S 2(24)(X) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Priyanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…f Rs.9,34,630/- on account of late deposit of PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the IT Act. 4. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), following various decisions including the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 417 (Del) sustained the addition made by the CPC, Bangalore holding that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the IT Act due to failure on his part in depositing the employees’ contribution on or before the due date. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. T…

Chattar Pal, Haryana vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Chattar Pal, Vs Dcit, C/O-Lc Yadav & Company, Cpc, # 205 Arcadia, South City-2, Bengaluru. Sector-49, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018 Pan-Asxpp1175E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri L C Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2021

Section 139(1)Section 142(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…

Mohammed Darus Salam, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Mohammed Darus Salam, Vs Dcit, 15/5A, Old Chandrawal, Civil Lines, Cpc, New Delhi-110054. Bengaluru. Pan-Afgpd5866E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manu K.Giri, Adv., Shri Aseem Chawla, Adv. & Ms. Sonia Dudeja, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…d against the assessee by CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 issued by the Department. A similar view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd (2015) 378 ITR 443. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 Order dated 06/09/2018 has also decided this issue in favour of Revenue and not followed its earlier judgement of AIMIL Ltd 321 ITR 508. The ITAT Delhi in the case of Eagle Trans Shipping & Logistics (India) (P.) Ltd. 109 taxmann.com 426 vide order dated 25/07 2019 has also decided this issue in favour of Revenue. The Finance Act, 2021 has settle…

Karimuddin Sani, Delhi vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Karimuddin Sani, Vs Adit, 64, Gali Kababian, Jama Masjid, Cpc, Delhi-110006. Bengaluru. Pan-Aoeps7092E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Paramjit Khanna, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

…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‟ Provident 8. 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 0…

M/S. Saysoft Tech Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Saysoft Tech Services Private Limited, Vs. Acit, No.38, First Floor, 12Th Main, 27Th Cross, Central Processing Centre, Jayanagar, 4Th Block, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 011. Pan : Aaocs 3596 M Assessee By : Shri. K. Yathish, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.07.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assesse Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.29,41,390/-. In An Intimation Dated 07.05.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 12,98,450/- 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. Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. K. Yathish, 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…

Star Facilities Management Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -24(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1755/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18 Star Facilities Management Limited, Vs. Ito, 115-Ansal Bhawan, Ward-24(2), 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs2854C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arta Trana Panda, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Is Regarding The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.2,62,984/- On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th July, 2018 Declaring Nil Income. The Return Was Processed On 15Th May, 2019 At Cpc, Bangalore At An Income Of Rs.2,62,980/- By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,62,984/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act. Before The Cit(A), The Assessee, Relying On Various Decisions, Submitted That The Addition Is Not Justified Since The Assessee Has Deposited The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income. However, The Ld.Cit(A), Following The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., Reported In 410 Itr 417 & Various Other Decisions, Held That The Assessee Is Not Entitled To Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) Due To Failure On His Part In Depositing The Employees’ Contribution On Or Before The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…ince the assessee has deposited the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing the return of income. However, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., reported in 410 ITR 417 and various other decisions, held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) due to failure on his part in depositing the employees’ contribution on or before the due date. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that a number of…

Transzone Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1740/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos.1739 & 1740/Del/2020 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Transzone Logistrics Vs. Dcit Cpc (India) Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore House No.259, Front Side First Floor, Shahabad Mohammadpur, New Delhi-110 075 Pan : Aadct 7687 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Gunjan Jain, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

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

…u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act is called for. Assessee also relied on various decisions. CIT(A) however did not agree with the contention of the assessee. He relying on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 417 upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee has now raised the following grounds: 1. “Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Learned First Appellate Authority is grossly injudicious, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. The Learned First Appellate Authority has grossly erred in upholding the disall…

Transzone Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1739/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

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

Amandeep Singh Khurana, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 30(4), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Khurana Vs. Ito W-71, Gk-1, New Delhi Ward – 30(4) Delhi – 110048 New Delhi Pan : Aajpk 0422 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashok Khandelwal, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

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

…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. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.…

Vansh Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 28(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Nem Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…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. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) 12 ITA.No.1853/Del./2020 Mr. Vansh Jain, New…

Aroon Facilitation Management Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1824/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 9

…which is prescribed under the said statute i.e. Provident Fund and ESIC. This issue is 11 ITA.No.1824/Del./2020 M/s. Aroon Facilitation Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.. 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. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.0…

Worldwide Facility Management Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1823/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 9

…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. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.0…

Adma Solution P Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1800/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 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 12 ITA.No.1800/Del./2020 M/s. Adama Solution Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.. upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Pro Int…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Oxigen Services India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 5467/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

…e grounds are ruled in favour of the appellant.” 12.2 Before us, the Learned DR submitted that the issue in dispute is covered against the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2019), 410 ITR 417 (Del. HC). 21 12.3 On the contrary, the Learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that in subsequent decision, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.983/2018, dated 10th September, 2018), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has reversed the decision in the case of Bharat hotels Ltd (su…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

ACIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 4459/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. Nos. 4458 & 4459/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) ACIT M/s. Bhadra International Circle : 4 (2) Vs. (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 42, M. M. Road, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi – 110 055. PAN: AABCB5550E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D. R.; Assessee by: N o n e. Date of Hearing : 12/08/2021 Date of pronouncement : 12 /08/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are two appeals fi…