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 43bsection 2(24)section 36(1)section 43section 36section 28section 139(1)section 139section 143(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd.

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 4458/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

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…

Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6941/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, C/O. Chachan & Lath, 1308-1309, Special Range-4, Best Sky Tower, F-5, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi, New Delhi Pan: Aabci1085P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 2(24)(x)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.(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…

Yogi Ji Technoequip Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1609/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2018-19 Yogi Ji Technoequip Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O-Rra Taxindia, D-28, Cpc, Bengaluru. South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110034. Pan-Aaacy3222D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh.Somil Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2021

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 234A

…ere not justified in disallowing the claim and making the addition. He submitted that Ld.CIT(A) had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court Assessment Year : 2018-19 rendered in the case of CIT vs Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 295/ 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). He submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Azamgarh Steel & Power Pvt.Ltd. vs CPC, Banglore in ITA no.1626/Del/2020 order dated 31.05.2021 following the decision of Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Dee Development Engineers Ltd. in ITA No.4959/Del/2016 order dated 08.04.2021 decided the issue in favour of t…

Pawan Kumar Janghu, Gurgaon vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1600/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2018-19 Pawan Kumar Janghu, Vs Dcit, C/O-Ca M R Sahu & Associates, Cpc, Bengaluru. H.No.651, Ff, Sec-10A, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Pan-Aevpj8333C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. M.R.Sahu, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2021

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 36(1)(va)

…ues where two views are possible. 4. That CIT(A) grossly erred in discarding the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee appellant and confirm addition on relying upon the judgments of Delhi High Court in the case of 'CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd (2019) 410 ITR 417 (DeI.HC) and that of Delhi Tribunal in the case of' Eagle Trans Shipping Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT (2019) 1781TD 849 (Del.Trib)' without appreciating the fact that ratio of decision in the case of 'CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the assessee appellant's case. 5. That CIT(A) grossly erred in not appre…

Indo States Exports, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1892/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2018-19 Indo States Exports, Vs Acit, E-6, Kalindi Colony, Circle-28(1), New Delhi-110065. New Delhi. Pan-Aaafi1883M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. R.K.Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2021

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Delhi High Court rendered in the case of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 [Del.] order dated 10.09.2018. Further he contended that the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 Taxmann.com 295 (Delhi), can not be applied on the facts of the present case. Subsequently, the Hon’ble High Court considering the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of the CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Del.) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 3. In the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the submissions of the Ld. Counse…

Maksat Technologies (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1540/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Maksat Technologies Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, E-13, Ground Floor, Block No. B-1, Circle-16(1), Mohan Cooperative Estate, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccm7831L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sohil Malik, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 32

…eans the due date of return of income as per section 139(1) not as per respective fund due date. b. Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the disallowance has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels ltd. (2018) 410 ITR 417(Del.) which was rendered on September 6, 2018. The decision relied upon by the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd.(supra) has been ignored on the ground that as per well settled law if two decisions are delivered by a Bench of equal strength, the later decision may be followed and which was also done by the Delhi ITAT in its decision rende…

Azamgarh Steel & Power Private Limited, New Delhi vs. CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1626/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Azamgarh Steel & Power Vs. Cpc Pvt. Ltd., Banglore 505, Dda Building, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi-110092 Pan No. Aaica 4658 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain Advocate Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Revenue By Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

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

…ying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (supra). He further pointed out that Tribunal has also noted the fact that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 417 which has been relied upon by the CIT(A), was without considering the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. He therefore relying on the aforesaid decision of Delhi ITAT in the case of Dee Development Engineers Ltd. (supra) submitted that the addition made by the CPC and upheld by the CIT(A) be deleted. 5. Learned…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…ments were made /deposited after the due date prescribed in the ESI Act, however, such deposits were made prior to the date of filing of the return u/s 139(1). We find, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., reported in (2019) 410 ITR 417 has held that Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and Provident Fund dues paid beyond prescribed period is not an allowable deduction. Since the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has decided the identical issue against the assessee which is after the date of SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Lt…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…ments were made /deposited after the due date prescribed in the ESI Act, however, such deposits were made prior to the date of filing of the return u/s 139(1). We find, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., reported in (2019) 410 ITR 417 has held that Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and Provident Fund dues paid beyond prescribed period is not an allowable deduction. Since the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has decided the identical issue against the assessee which is after the date of SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Lt…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…ments were made /deposited after the due date prescribed in the ESI Act, however, such deposits were made prior to the date of filing of the return u/s 139(1). We find, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., reported in (2019) 410 ITR 417 has held that Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and Provident Fund dues paid beyond prescribed period is not an allowable deduction. Since the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has decided the identical issue against the assessee which is after the date of SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Lt…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…ments were made /deposited after the due date prescribed in the ESI Act, however, such deposits were made prior to the date of filing of the return u/s 139(1). We find, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., reported in (2019) 410 ITR 417 has held that Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and Provident Fund dues paid beyond prescribed period is not an allowable deduction. Since the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has decided the identical issue against the assessee which is after the date of SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Lt…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…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 decided t…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…turn 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 :- 67 -: adjudicating in the case of Bharat Hotels(supra). The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court…

Brig. Narayan Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT-5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.30/CTK/2017 is partly allowed for

ITA 230/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.30/Ctk/2017 & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.230/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Brig. Narayan Nayak, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Prop: M/S Industrial Security & Bhubaneswar Allied Services, F3-F5, Id Market, Irc Village, Nayapalli, Bhubanesar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Abapn 3373 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Two Appeals, One Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Dated 27.10.2016 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act & Another Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.04.2019 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.30/Ctk/2017, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Sahoo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

…ct of ESI payment, the assessee could not furnish any details, therefore, both the authorities have rightly disallowed the above payments. In this regard, ld. DR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). It was also submitted by the ld. DR that the case laws relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee is not applicable in the present case. He further submitted that in respect of addition for violation of TDS provision, there is no force in the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee that the amended provision is applicable w.e.f.01.04.2015…

Brig.Narayan Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.30/CTK/2017 is partly allowed for

ITA 30/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.30/Ctk/2017 & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.230/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Brig. Narayan Nayak, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Prop: M/S Industrial Security & Bhubaneswar Allied Services, F3-F5, Id Market, Irc Village, Nayapalli, Bhubanesar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Abapn 3373 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Two Appeals, One Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Dated 27.10.2016 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act & Another Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.04.2019 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.30/Ctk/2017, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Sahoo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

…ct of ESI payment, the assessee could not furnish any details, therefore, both the authorities have rightly disallowed the above payments. In this regard, ld. DR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). It was also submitted by the ld. DR that the case laws relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee is not applicable in the present case. He further submitted that in respect of addition for violation of TDS provision, there is no force in the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee that the amended provision is applicable w.e.f.01.04.2015…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are partly

ITA 512/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Garg, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat , CIT DR
Section 158ASection 158A(1)Section 43B

…. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the contribution to EPF was deposited by the assessee before due date of filing the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. Recently, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., (2019) 103 Taxmann.com 295 (Del) held thus: “ 7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees‟ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees‟ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952) and the provisions of the Employees‟ Sta…

Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Range-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are partly

ITA 471/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Garg, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat , CIT DR
Section 158ASection 158A(1)Section 43B

…. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the contribution to EPF was deposited by the assessee before due date of filing the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. Recently, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., (2019) 103 Taxmann.com 295 (Del) held thus: “ 7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees‟ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees‟ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952) and the provisions of the Employees‟ Sta…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vrv Foods Ltd., Noida

ITA 4456/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…urt has decided the issue in Alom 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 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 & ESI 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…

Vrv Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4121/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…urt has decided the issue in Alom 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 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 & ESI 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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Digicall Teleservices P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 238/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. D.R
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…have heard the Ld. D.R. who has submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the Revenue by 6 ITA.No.238/Del./2017 M/s. Digicall Teleservices P. Ltd., New Delhi. Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT, Delhi vs., M/s. Bharat Hotels Ltd., 410 ITR 417 (Del.) in which in paras 8 and 9 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under : 8. “Having regard to the specific provisions of the Employees 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 08.01.2016), we are of the opinion tha…