CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.

284 ITR 619High Court2006#968 most cited

What is CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. authority for?

An assessee may manage tax affairs to attract lower tax as permitted by law, and a genuine sale and leaseback transaction that provides substantial benefit is not a colourable device for tax avoidance.

111

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. · George Williamson Assam · tax planning · tax avoidance · colourable device · sale and leaseback · genuine transaction · lesser tax · business transaction genuineness

Issues it is cited on

specified fundsection 35abbsection 35ddwaiver of loanclarificatory amendmentazadi bachao andolansection 40a(ia)short deduction of taxsection 43b(b)retrospective amendmentsection 80ia(4)section 194h

Judgments citing CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 307/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Vs. ACIT reported in 284 ITR 89 (AT) has categorically held that the language of the statute must be understood in the sense in which it was understood when it was enacted. The Hon'ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. George Williamson Ltd. report in 284 ITR 619 has allowed the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee which includes the payments made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision of the Hon'ble Guahati High Court in the case of George Williamson is affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR at Page 268.Thus the qu…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 306/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Vs. ACIT reported in 284 ITR 89 (AT) has categorically held that the language of the statute must be understood in the sense in which it was understood when it was enacted. The Hon'ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. George Williamson Ltd. report in 284 ITR 619 has allowed the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee which includes the payments made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision of the Hon'ble Guahati High Court in the case of George Williamson is affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR at Page 268.Thus the qu…

DCIT-5(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2987/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…duly registered with department of telecommunication and hence cannot be termed as a non-genuine transaction. The ld.AR for the assessee had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 626 (Gauhati High Court) and in the case of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 266 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that the assessee can manage its tax affairs to attract a lesser tax as permitted by law and where the assets have been sold and leased back the same cannot be categorized as a colourable device, where th…

Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2150/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…duly registered with department of telecommunication and hence cannot be termed as a non-genuine transaction. The ld.AR for the assessee had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 626 (Gauhati High Court) and in the case of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 266 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that the assessee can manage its tax affairs to attract a lesser tax as permitted by law and where the assets have been sold and leased back the same cannot be categorized as a colourable device, where th…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2179/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…duly registered with department of telecommunication and hence cannot be termed as a non-genuine transaction. The ld.AR for the assessee had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 626 (Gauhati High Court) and in the case of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 266 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that the assessee can manage its tax affairs to attract a lesser tax as permitted by law and where the assets have been sold and leased back the same cannot be categorized as a colourable device, where th…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2178/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…duly registered with department of telecommunication and hence cannot be termed as a non-genuine transaction. The ld.AR for the assessee had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 626 (Gauhati High Court) and in the case of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 266 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that the assessee can manage its tax affairs to attract a lesser tax as permitted by law and where the assets have been sold and leased back the same cannot be categorized as a colourable device, where th…

Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1777/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…duly registered with department of telecommunication and hence cannot be termed as a non-genuine transaction. The ld.AR for the assessee had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 626 (Gauhati High Court) and in the case of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 266 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that the assessee can manage its tax affairs to attract a lesser tax as permitted by law and where the assets have been sold and leased back the same cannot be categorized as a colourable device, where th…

Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1775/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…duly registered with department of telecommunication and hence cannot be termed as a non-genuine transaction. The ld.AR for the assessee had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 626 (Gauhati High Court) and in the case of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 266 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that the assessee can manage its tax affairs to attract a lesser tax as permitted by law and where the assets have been sold and leased back the same cannot be categorized as a colourable device, where th…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5945/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…duly registered with department of telecommunication and hence cannot be termed as a non-genuine transaction. The ld.AR for the assessee had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 626 (Gauhati High Court) and in the case of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 266 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that the assessee can manage its tax affairs to attract a lesser tax as permitted by law and where the assets have been sold and leased back the same cannot be categorized as a colourable device, where th…

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Hq (Judl.) to CIT-14, Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5765/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…duly registered with department of telecommunication and hence cannot be termed as a non-genuine transaction. The ld.AR for the assessee had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 626 (Gauhati High Court) and in the case of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 266 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that the assessee can manage its tax affairs to attract a lesser tax as permitted by law and where the assets have been sold and leased back the same cannot be categorized as a colourable device, where th…

C. Doctor & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off on the

ITA 5654/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

Section 139Section 143

…Vinay Cement Limited ( 213 CTR 0268) and also various judgments of the ITAT and the High Courts as follows: i) Sai Consulting Engineers (P) Limited. v. DCIT Circle 8, Abd. ITA No. 2262/Ahd/2007. ii) Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 (Kar). iii)George Williamson 284 ITR 619 (Gau). iv) Sunil Goel v. ACIT 118 TTJ (Del) 415. v) CIT v. P.M. Electronics Limited 15 DTR 258 (Delhi High Court). vi) CIT v. AIMIL Limited & Ors. (2010) 35 DTR (Del) 68 (Delhi High Court). vii) CIT v. ANZ Information Technology 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka). viii) Additional CIT v. Vestas RRB India Limited (2005) 93 TTJ (Del) 144. Though the appellant…

Rachit V Shah, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 420/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya for Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA.No.420/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rachit V Shah, Vs. ITO-7(3), 15-6-519, Hyderabad. Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. PAN : AOCPS1898E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CA Revenue by: Shri Kumar Adithya for Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR Date of hearing: 23.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissio…

Nimbus Pipes Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 384/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Badaya (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel (JCIT)
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…IT VS Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd (368 ITR 749) [2014] (Bombay),  CIT Vs Almil Ltd; Nirmala Swami; Spearhead Digital Studio; M/S NET 4 INDIA Ltd: Modipon Ltd; and M/s Ekta Agro Industries Ltd (321 ITR 508)[2010](Delhi).  CIT VS George Williamson (Assam) Ltd 284 ITR 619[2006] (Gauhati).  Sagun Foundry Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 78 Taxmann 47[2017] (Allahabad).  M/s Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd Vs CIT (393 ITR 386) [2017](Patna);  CIT VS Alken Laboratories Ltd (Patna), CIT VS M/s Lakhani Rubber Udyog Pvt Ltd (P&H),  Geekay Security Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (101 taxmann.com 192][2019] In the various judgments i…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol-III vs. M/S. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA/96/2007HC Calcutta05 Jan 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 80I

…ka High Court reported in 166 ITR 866 and the Tribunal’s decision reported in 96 ITD 186, (vi) The contribution made towards person scheme under Section 43B of the Act before filing of the return by the appellant without considering the judgments reported in 284 ITR 619, 100 ITD 199(2004) 1 SOT 210, (vii) A part of interest on borrowed funds without considering the decision of jurisdictional High Court reported in 134 ITR 816 approved by the Supreme Court in 224 ITR 627 and (viii) Interest on borrowed fund under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without considering the Supreme Court ruling reported in 288 ITR1(SC).…

Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA/173/2007HC Calcutta05 Jan 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 80I

…ka High Court reported in 166 ITR 866 and the Tribunal’s decision reported in 96 ITD 186, (vi) The contribution made towards person scheme under Section 43B of the Act before filing of the return by the appellant without considering the judgments reported in 284 ITR 619, 100 ITD 199(2004) 1 SOT 210, (vii) A part of interest on borrowed funds without considering the decision of jurisdictional High Court reported in 134 ITR 816 approved by the Supreme Court in 224 ITR 627 and (viii) Interest on borrowed fund under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without considering the Supreme Court ruling reported in 288 ITR1(SC).…

M/S. Suresh Electricals, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Suresh Electricals, Vs. Dcit, Ward No.25, Cmc T. S. No.227, Tilak Cpc, Nagar, Khb Colony, Bengaluru. Bellary – 583 101. Pan : Abyfs 9751 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Suresh Electricals, Vs. DCIT, Ward No.25, CMC T. S. No.227, Tilak CPC, Nagar, KHB Colony, Bengaluru. Bellary – 583 101. PAN : ABYFS 9751 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 23.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi, dated 12.07.2022, relating to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The only…

Bhoruka Fabcons Private Limited, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 910/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Bhoruka Fabcons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.427E, Hebbal Industrial Area, Cpc, Mysuru – 570 016. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccb 9377 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bhargava S. N, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 28.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Calculated In The Prescribed Manner Under The Relevant Act. As Per Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. Bhargava S. N, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s. Bhoruka Fabcons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, No.427E, Hebbal Industrial Area, CPC, Mysuru – 570 016. Bengaluru. PAN : AACCB 9377 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Bhargava S. N, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 23.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi, dated 28.07.2022, relating to Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The…

Chase Security, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 796/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Chase Security, Vs. The Ito, No.16/A, 1St Floor, Millar Tank Bund Ward – 6(3)(1), Cpc, Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Aaefc 2412 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2021 By The Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Chase Security, Vs. The ITO, No.16/A, 1st Floor, Millar Tank Bund Ward – 6(3)(1), CPC, Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. PAN : AAEFC 2412 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 21.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order dated 29.04.2021 by the NFAC, Delhi relating to Assessment Year 201…

Enmas India Private Limited, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/CHNY/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.714/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020 -21 M/S. Enmas India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Sp 107, Eom Square Ambattur, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Indl. Estate S.O., Tiruvallur, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Tamil Nadu 600 058. [Pan:Aabce4825F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. & Shri Sriraj Gokavarapu, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 16.12.2020 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.4,77,23,830/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

M/S Bab Leather Products International, Thirumudivakkam vs. DCIT, Chenai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 665/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.665/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Bab Leather Products The Deputy Commissioner Of International, 162/163, Sidco Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 044. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafb6228M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 28.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 23.09.2015 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.54,09,150/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…