CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…ve Acts. 16. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant mainly relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vinay Cements Ltd. and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749) and contended that the deduction on payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC is allowable as per the provisions of section 43B, as the payment is made before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T Act. 17. This issue of allowability of deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC has been settled by the decision o…

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…ve Acts. 16. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant mainly relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vinay Cements Ltd. and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749) and contended that the deduction on payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC is allowable as per the provisions of section 43B, as the payment is made before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T Act. 17. This issue of allowability of deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC has been settled by the decision o…

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…vs CIT 448 ITR 518 (SC). However, second part which relates to delay in deposits of employers’ contribution of ESIC & PF is in favour of assessee by the decision of various High Courts including of Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom). 45. On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. The ld. CIT DR submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) confirmed the disallowance on account of delay of deposits of employees as well as employers’ contribution of ESI & PF. 46. We have considered the submission…

ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…vs CIT 448 ITR 518 (SC). However, second part which relates to delay in deposits of employers’ contribution of ESIC & PF is in favour of assessee by the decision of various High Courts including of Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom). 45. On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. The ld. CIT DR submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) confirmed the disallowance on account of delay of deposits of employees as well as employers’ contribution of ESI & PF. 46. We have considered the submission…

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…vs CIT 448 ITR 518 (SC). However, second part which relates to delay in deposits of employers’ contribution of ESIC & PF is in favour of assessee by the decision of various High Courts including of Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom). 45. On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. The ld. CIT DR submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) confirmed the disallowance on account of delay of deposits of employees as well as employers’ contribution of ESI & PF. 46. We have considered the submission…

THE ACIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…vs CIT 448 ITR 518 (SC). However, second part which relates to delay in deposits of employers’ contribution of ESIC & PF is in favour of assessee by the decision of various High Courts including of Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom). 45. On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. The ld. CIT DR submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) confirmed the disallowance on account of delay of deposits of employees as well as employers’ contribution of ESI & PF. 46. We have considered the submission…

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD(NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…vs CIT 448 ITR 518 (SC). However, second part which relates to delay in deposits of employers’ contribution of ESIC & PF is in favour of assessee by the decision of various High Courts including of Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom). 45. On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. The ld. CIT DR submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) confirmed the disallowance on account of delay of deposits of employees as well as employers’ contribution of ESI & PF. 46. We have considered the submission…

DCIT 2 2 1, MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

…filing date) should not be disallowed. The assessee relies on earlier jurisprudence which had allowed such deductions if remitted by the 8 ITA 1093/Mum/2025 ITA 992/Mum/2025 Yes Bank Ltd due date of filing the return (e.g. CTT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749) (Bom) and other High Court rulings), and maintains that the disallowance is unwarranted on facts and in law. Revenue's Rebuttal: At the outset, the Revenue appreciates the difficulties faced by the assessee during the RBI-imposed moratorium in March 2020. Nevertheless, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act is mandated by…

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA

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

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

…filing date) should not be disallowed. The assessee relies on earlier jurisprudence which had allowed such deductions if remitted by the 8 ITA 1093/Mum/2025 ITA 992/Mum/2025 Yes Bank Ltd due date of filing the return (e.g. CTT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749) (Bom) and other High Court rulings), and maintains that the disallowance is unwarranted on facts and in law. Revenue's Rebuttal: At the outset, the Revenue appreciates the difficulties faced by the assessee during the RBI-imposed moratorium in March 2020. Nevertheless, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act is mandated by…

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

…case, at the minimum, cannot fall in this category. Our attention was invited to Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgments in the cases of CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom.)] and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom.)].What is on record, in this case, is an audit report which is prepared by a third party, i.e. an independent tax auditor, and a lapse in the tax audit report, as indeed in this case, cannot be put against the assessee for the purpose of a disallowance under section 143(1). For this short reason alone, according to the learned counsel, the…

KHANDELWAL LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ADDITION COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. Khandelwal Additional Commissioner Laboratories Private of Income Tax, CPC Limited DCIT 6.1.2., 79/87 D Lad Path, Aayakar Bhavan Chinchpokli, CPC Bengaluru, Maharashtra- 400033. Karnataka- 560001. PAN: AAACK4225E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue by : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 21 . 05 . 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ra…

MARKOLINES INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 15(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

…in respect of the aforesaid disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd, (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) and held that payment of Employees’ Contribution to ESIC/PF after the due date but before the date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is an allowable deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us on merits of disallowance, while the assessee has filed the cross-objection also rais…

MARKOLINES INFRA PVT LTD.,BELAPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

…in respect of the aforesaid disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd, (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) and held that payment of Employees' Contribution to ESIC/PF after the due date but before the date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is an allowable deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us on merits of disallowance, while the assessee has filed the cross-objection also rais…