CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

….e. w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and not retrospective. For the above contentions, Ld. AR relied on following judicial pronouncements: - (i). M/s. Geekay Securities Services Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT (2019) 101 taxmann.com 192. (ii). CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bombay). 5. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the assessee for the various reasons could not deposit the employees contribution to provident fund within the time allowed under prescribed Act. Whereas, the assessee has deposited th…

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst/Dy/ Dir of Income Tax CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

….e. w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and not retrospective. For the above contentions, Ld. AR relied on following judicial pronouncements: - (i). M/s. Geekay Securities Services Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT (2019) 101 taxmann.com 192. (ii). CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bombay). 5. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the assessee for the various reasons could not deposit the employees contribution to provident fund within the time allowed under prescribed Act. Whereas, the assessee has deposited th…

Aevitas Pharmagro Tech P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1675/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Aevitas Pharmagro Tech Private Limited, B2-210, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 072. Pan: Aaacp-6240-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Cpc) Bengaluru -560 500. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Milan Dattani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Jain सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

…y. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee vehemently submitted that the CIT(A) failed to follow the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd., 366 ITR1(Bom) and CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., 368 ITR 749(Bom). As regards retrospective applicability of amendment he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Adayar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 143 taxmann.com 56. 3. Per contra Shri Mehul Jain representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that provisions of sect…

Megger India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…s 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 Vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT Vs 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 i…

M/S. Nath Indutries Ltd, Mumbai vs. A.Ci.T. Circle 1(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…s 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 Vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT Vs 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 i…

Bharat Tin Works, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…s 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 Vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT Vs 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 i…

Advance Power Display Systems Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 222/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 223/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13) Advance Power Display System Ltd. Unit No.6, Multistoried Building, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 096 Pan: Aaaca-5970-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Jcit (Osd), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai . अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Y.P. Trivedi Sr. Advocate With Shri Nishit Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sathya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-55, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A) ’] For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, Respectively. Both The Impugned Order Are Of Even Date I.E. 15/11/2018. Since, Identical Issues Are Involved In 2

…ly, the payment has been made after due date as specified under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing return of income. Therefore, in light of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., 368 ITR 749, the expenditure is allowable towards gratuity payment. Consequently, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed. 7. In ground No.4 of appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.48,295/-. Undisputedly, the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases from parties declared as hawala op…

Advance Power Display Systems Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 222/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 223/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13) Advance Power Display System Ltd. Unit No.6, Multistoried Building, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 096 Pan: Aaaca-5970-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Jcit (Osd), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai . अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Y.P. Trivedi Sr. Advocate With Shri Nishit Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sathya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-55, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A) ’] For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, Respectively. Both The Impugned Order Are Of Even Date I.E. 15/11/2018. Since, Identical Issues Are Involved In 2

…ly, the payment has been made after due date as specified under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing return of income. Therefore, in light of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., 368 ITR 749, the expenditure is allowable towards gratuity payment. Consequently, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed. 7. In ground No.4 of appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.48,295/-. Undisputedly, the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases from parties declared as hawala op…

M/S. Harmony Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd, DCIT CPC vs. DCIT, CPC, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

…s 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 Vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT Vs 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 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Page 3 of 10 purpose of a disallowance under section 143(1). For this short reason alone, a…

Hercules Hoists Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Itd, Bangalore

In the result, this appeal is allowed

…ITA No.2000/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 1 of 10 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘H’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President)] and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member)] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hercules Hoists Limited., …………………….. Appellant 43-2B, Savroli Kharpada Road, Dhamani, Raigarh 410202 [PAN: AAACH2706D] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….Respondent Appearances: M.A Gohel for the appellant Dinesh Chourasia for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : April 20, 2022 Date of pronouncement the order : April 28, 2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar,…

Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Astt. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore [DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai]

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhemkay Facilities Vs. Acit (Cpc), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [Dcit Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

…on account of alleged delay in payment towards Provident Fund, ESIC and any Other Welfare Fund u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B and 2(24)(x) of the Act. a) By disregarding the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 and Hind Filter Ltd 90 taxmann.com 51 (Bombay) and Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). By disregarding the fact that the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court is binding even in faceless appeal and assessment as per the order of Mahadev Cold Storage 127 taxmann.com 722 (Agra) I which it is held that, "Though Centralized NFAC has been c…

M/S. Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…uction us 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. (c) The CIT(A) erred in not following the binding decision of Hon‘ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd [366 ITR 1] and CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports [td [368 ITR 749] while deciding the issue in appeal.” ISSUE NO.1 A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20 4. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.4,51,308/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act out of Employees Contribution to PF & ESIC. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the payment of Employees Contribution to PF & ESIC of…

Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…uction us 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. (c) The CIT(A) erred in not following the binding decision of Hon‘ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd [366 ITR 1] and CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports [td [368 ITR 749] while deciding the issue in appeal.” ISSUE NO.1 A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20 4. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.4,51,308/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act out of Employees Contribution to PF & ESIC. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the payment of Employees Contribution to PF & ESIC of…

Ani Integrated Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

…s 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 Vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT Vs 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 i…