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.

Elegant Dyeing and Processing Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 775/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR
Section 250

…sofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed.” 5. The ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 followed by this Tribunal in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt Ltd. 6. We find that this Tribunal in ITA No. 1392/DEL/2021 & Others has duly considered the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Hotels [supra] and has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Pro…

Cxc Infotech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed

ITA 436/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmacxc Infotech Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit Cpc, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Bangalore Llp, Ca C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecc1887C

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER CXC Infotech Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT CPC, C/o Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Bangalore LLP, Ca C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAECC1887C Assessee by : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, CA Revenue by: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 10/08/2022 Date of pronouncement 17/08/2022 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 02.09.2020 of Ld CIT(A)-2, New Delhi (hereinafter referred a…

Advance Ventilation (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1835/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36

…sofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed.” 5. The ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 followed by this Tribunal in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt Ltd. 6. We find that this Tribunal in ITA No. 1392/DEL/2021 & Others has duly considered the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Hotels [supra] and has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Pro…

Akal Information Systems Limited, New Delhi vs. Circle - 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1633/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Rajersh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 36

…sofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed.” 5. The ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 followed by this Tribunal in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt Ltd. 6. We find that this Tribunal in ITA No. 1392/DEL/2021 & Others has duly considere the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Hotels [supra] and has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Pro…

Roshan Hospital, Bhopal vs. DCIT-5(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 42/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: FixedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Roshan Hospital Dcit-5(1), 7-A-B, Govind Garden, Raisen Bhopal Road, Govindpura, Bhopal- Vs. 462023 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aasfr4278B Appellant By None Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…eturn. 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 ESI. 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 decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018, the Hon'ble Hi…

Prasanna Chandrasheker Shetty, Mandideep vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 41/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Prasanna Chandrashekher Asst. Director Of Income Tax Shetty, C/O. P. Mogra & Cpc, Bengaluru Associates Chartered Accountants, 203, D.M. Tower, Vs. Janjirwalla Square, 21/1 Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahxps2998B Appellant By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…eturn. 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 ESI. 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 decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018, the Hon'ble Hi…

Shri Girish Deokar, Dewas vs. The ITO -1, Dewas

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 16/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Girish Deokar Ito 305, Yashoda Apartment, 66 Ward-1, Vs. Radhaganj Dewas (M.P.) Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapd7130P Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Singi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…eturn. 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 ESI. 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 decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018, the Hon'ble Hi…

M/S Aakash Global Foods P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 15/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Aakash Global Foods Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Cpc, Survey No.13/1/5,16/2,17/4, Bangalore Vs. Village Kumedi, Tehsil Sanwer, Indore(M.P.) (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadca4544R Appellant By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Respondent By Shri Singi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…eturn. 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 ESI. 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 decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018, the Hon'ble Hi…

M/S Eagle Techsec Communication India P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 11/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Eagle Techsec Dcit Communication India Pvt. Income-Tax, Cpc, Ltd., M-23, New Siyaganj, Bangalore Mal Godam Road, Behind Vs. Shastri Market, Indore, M. P. 452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aacce4785D Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri P. K. Singi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…eturn. 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 ESI. 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 decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018, the Hon'ble Hi…

M/S Guruji Products P Ltd, Pithampur vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 10/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Guruji Products Pvt. Dcit Ltd., 285, A.B. Road, Income-Tax, Cpc, Pigdamber, Mhow, Vs. Bangalore Pithampur, Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadca4544R Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Respondent By Shri P. K. Singi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…eturn. 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 ESI. 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 decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018, the Hon'ble Hi…

K N Harish, Kushal Nagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Kakalkoppa Ningappa Harish, Vs. Dcit, 11, Adithya Communications, Cpc, Mullusoge, Bengaluru. Kushal Nagar – 571 234. Pan : Abbph 7724 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanyam, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(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). 7. 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…

Gem Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Gem Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.45, Industry House, Ward – 3(1)(2), Race Course Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacg 4140 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(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). 7. 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…

Wadi Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 117/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 250Section 43BSection 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Wadi Services Pvt. Ltd., VersuS Income-tax Officer, H.No. 129, Block-D, Ward 27(3), New Delhi Kamla Nagar, New Delhi. PAN: AABCW5617P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri M. Baranwal, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing : 01.08.2022 Date of order : 05.08.2022 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 15.09.2020, impugned herein, passed by the learned Com…

Rajan Banquet Pvt.Ltd., Moradabad vs. ACIT-1, Moradabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1427/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

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

…of Eagle Trans Shipping & Logistics (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 324/Del/2017 order dated 25.07.2019 wherein the issue has been ruled against the assessee based on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417.  Order of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1312/Del/2020 dated 26.08.2021 wherein the issue has been ruled against the assessee based on the judgments of Hon’ble Madras High Court, Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Kerala High Court. The said orders are examined which are as under: MADRAS HIGH COUR…

Wave Mechancis Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Wave Mechanics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, V-3, V-3, I Main, I Phase, Peenya Cpc, Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aaacw 3621 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhukeshwar Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(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). 7. 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…

Krishnappa Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Krishnappa Murthy, Vs. Cit, #67, 4Th Cross, 2Nd Main, Hosahalli, Cpc, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan : Armpm 8844 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Priya Balashankar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Balashankar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(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). 7. 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…

Balmatta Diagnostic & Research Centre Ltd., Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 516/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Mrinalini R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(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). 7. 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…

Balmatta Diagnostic & Research Centre Ltd., Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 515/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(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). 7. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill 2021 was only declaratory / clarificatory in nature and there therefore was applicable with retrospective effect by necessary intendment of deeming nature…

M/S. Sree Narasimha Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sree Narasimha Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.57, Ground Floor, Vasuki, Cpc, Swasthi Road Cross Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aakcs 0472 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Priya Balashankar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Balashankar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(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). 7. 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…

C Krishniah Chetty Jewellers Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 747/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Krishniah Chetty Jewellers Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(1), No.36, 1St Floor, Commercial Street, Bengaluru. Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaack 5621 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. R. Krishna, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. C. R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(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). 7. 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…