CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

368 ITR 749High Court2014#99 most cited

What is CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. authority for?

Deduction for employees' contributions to PF and ESIC is allowable under Section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1); similarly, delayed deposits of employers' contributions to ESIC and PF are also allowable.

609

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · Section 139(1) · employees contribution PF ESIC · employers contribution PF ESIC · delayed payment ESI PF · deduction of welfare contributions · due date for deposit · Bombay High Court

Also reported as

228 Taxmann 340

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 115JBSection 143(1)Section 148Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 44ab(a)section 143(1)(a)(iii)section 143(1)(a)(i)processing under section 143(1)section 143(1)(a)(iv)employees contribution to pfsection 36(1)(va)section 10aasection 2(24)(x)section 43bsection 44asection 2(24)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

One Point One Solutions Limited, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Thane vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1443/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nst the impugned order of the lower authorities. During the appellate proceedings, the ld. AR contended that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the binding precedent of the jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom), where on similar facts, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has reiterated the proposition that employee’s contribution to provident fund which was deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act but paid before the due date of filing of return should be allowed u/s.36(1)(va). 5. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for sh…

Quarter Deck, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, CPC Bangalore

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1381/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…ITA No.1381/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Page 1 of 10 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘SMC’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President)] and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member)] Assessment Year: 2018-19 Quarter Deck …………………….. Appellant Shop No. 1, Ratan Nagar, Near Aziz Broilers, Four Bunglows, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400058 [PAN: AAAFQ2451M] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore ………………….Respondent Appearances: Haridas Bhat for the appellant Sudha Ramchandran for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : April 20, 2022 Date of pronouncement the order : April 28, 2022 O…

M/S Mahavir Paints and Adhesives Pvt.Ltd, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 20/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Mahavir Paints & V. The Income Tax Officer Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Ward 2(3)(3) 123/760-D, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacm9521B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 20.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has .Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Amount Paid Towards Esic & Epf Of The Employees, Which Amount Being Allowable Both On The Basis Of Interpretation Of The Statute & On The Basis Of The Decision Of The Apex Court In The, Case Of Allom Extrusion 319 Ir 306 (Sc). Pr. Cit Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. & The Allahabad High Court In The Case Of Shagun Foundry Private Limited Vs. Cit ,Ita No. .87 Of 20061 'The Same Be Allowed. 2. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Esic & Epf, Being A Business Expenditure Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Having Been 'Paid Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income, The Same Being An Allowable Business

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s Mahavir Paints and v. The Income Tax Officer Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Ward 2(3)(3) 123/760-D, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:AAACM9521B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 09 03 2022 Date of pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 20.12.2021, for Assessment Year 2019-20, raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Beca…

M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd, Hazratganj vs. The ACIT -5, Lucknow New

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1 & 2/LKW/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Premier Car Sales Ltd. v. The ACIT 9, Premier Building Lucknow Shahnajaf Road Hazratganj, Lucknow TAN/PAN:AABCP5806H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 09 03 2022 Date of pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: These are assessee’s appeals against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi,…

M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd, Hazratgang vs. The ACIT -5, Lucknow New

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1 & 2/LKW/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Premier Car Sales Ltd. v. The ACIT 9, Premier Building Lucknow Shahnajaf Road Hazratganj, Lucknow TAN/PAN:AABCP5806H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 09 03 2022 Date of pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: These are assessee’s appeals against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi,…

Mr. Shitij Dhawan, Kanpur vs. The Assessing Officer, Special Range

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Shitij Dhawan v. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:ACQPD3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 09 03 2022 Date of pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 17.11.2021, for Assessment Year 2018-19, raising the f…

Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir CPC``, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2260/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvijay Bag Singh Vs. The Deputy Rajpurohit, Unit No. 2 Commissioner Of Income Building No. 2 Jaswant Tax, Cpc, Bangalore, Bagh, Sion Trombay 560100 Road, Chembur Mumbai – 400071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adqpr7848L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…in law the Ld CITA erred in upholding disallowance under section 36(1)(va) without considering the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in case of Jurisdictional Hon'able Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom) wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held that the Supreme Court in Alom Extrusions Ltd 319 ITR 306 applies to employees' contribution as well as employers' contribution. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITA erred considering the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act 2021 as retr…

Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1910/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…ITA No.1910/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 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: 2019-2020 Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd., …………………….. Appellant 8, Kuntal, Modi Estate, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086 [PAN: AAACK6496P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….Respondent Appearances: Bhupendra Shah for the appellant Dinesh Chourasia for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : April 19, 2022 Date of pronouncement the order : April 27, 2022 O R…

Bishnucharan Bharat Mohanty, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1906/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Matrix Integreted Products Llp Vs. Adit(Cpc)-Ward 27 (2)(2) 213/5746, 2Nd Floor, Aruodya Darshan, Navi Mumbai 400 703 90 Feet Road Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 075 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Abcfm7193D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnucharan Bharat Mohanty, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (1)(2) B-4, Maichael Sadan, Laxmi Udyog Nagar, Mumbai 400051 Kanjur Marg (W) Mumbai 400078 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aqepm6398K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. I have heard the the parties and perused the record. I find that the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring the decision of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749, wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has followed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd., and has held that employees contribution to PF & ESI up to the date of filing of return cannot be disallowed. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above said adjustment can fall under the category of 143(1) prima-facie a…

Matrix Integrated Products LLP, Mumbai vs. WD 27(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1905/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Matrix Integreted Products Llp Vs. Adit(Cpc)-Ward 27 (2)(2) 213/5746, 2Nd Floor, Aruodya Darshan, Navi Mumbai 400 703 90 Feet Road Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 075 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Abcfm7193D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnucharan Bharat Mohanty, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (1)(2) B-4, Maichael Sadan, Laxmi Udyog Nagar, Mumbai 400051 Kanjur Marg (W) Mumbai 400078 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aqepm6398K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. I have heard the the parties and perused the record. I find that the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring the decision of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749, wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has followed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd., and has held that employees contribution to PF & ESI up to the date of filing of return cannot be disallowed. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above said adjustment can fall under the category of 143(1) prima-facie a…

Associated Hospitality and Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1747/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop, Vs. Ito-Ward1(1) 1 C/O Sterling Motor Compound, Nashik 422 002 Old Agra Road, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik 422001 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Acbfs2289L Assessee By : Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vishnu Sadu Gade, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3 C-3, 302, Ashar Estate, Thane 400 604 Shreenagar, Thane (W)-400604 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aabpg4702C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Associated Hospitality & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc 4Th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 062 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aafca7847P Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Vs. Cit(A)- (Faceless) 501, Blue Bell, Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aadfv0326M Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. I have heard the the parties and perused the record. I find that the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring the decision of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749, wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has followed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd., and has held that employees contribution to PF & ESI up to the date of filing of return cannot be disallowed. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above said adjustment can fall under the category of 143(1) prima-facie a…

Vishnu Sadu Gade, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir. 3, Thane

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1746/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop, Vs. Ito-Ward1(1) 1 C/O Sterling Motor Compound, Nashik 422 002 Old Agra Road, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik 422001 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Acbfs2289L Assessee By : Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vishnu Sadu Gade, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3 C-3, 302, Ashar Estate, Thane 400 604 Shreenagar, Thane (W)-400604 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aabpg4702C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Associated Hospitality & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc 4Th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 062 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aafca7847P Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Vs. Cit(A)- (Faceless) 501, Blue Bell, Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aadfv0326M Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. I have heard the the parties and perused the record. I find that the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring the decision of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749, wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has followed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd., and has held that employees contribution to PF & ESI up to the date of filing of return cannot be disallowed. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above said adjustment can fall under the category of 143(1) prima-facie a…

M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Mumbai vs. ITO 32 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1575/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop, Vs. Ito-Ward1(1) 1 C/O Sterling Motor Compound, Nashik 422 002 Old Agra Road, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik 422001 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Acbfs2289L Assessee By : Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vishnu Sadu Gade, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3 C-3, 302, Ashar Estate, Thane 400 604 Shreenagar, Thane (W)-400604 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aabpg4702C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Associated Hospitality & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc 4Th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 062 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aafca7847P Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Vs. Cit(A)- (Faceless) 501, Blue Bell, Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aadfv0326M Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. I have heard the the parties and perused the record. I find that the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring the decision of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749, wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has followed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd., and has held that employees contribution to PF & ESI up to the date of filing of return cannot be disallowed. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above said adjustment can fall under the category of 143(1) prima-facie a…

Geeta Udyog, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 226/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgeeta Udyog Vs. Asst. Director Of Income 404, Gupta Bhavan, Tax, Cpc, Bengluru Ahmedabad Street, Centralized Processing Carnac Bunder, Centre, Income Tax Mumbai – 400009 Department, Bengaluru 560500 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfg1369H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e belated payments of the Employee's share of PF Rs.4,66,648/- and ESI Rs.82,398/- was allowable having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pranav Agro Indus. Ltd. vide order dated 08.07.2019 and Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. (368 ITR 749 - Bombay) since the same has been paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and hence, the disallowance made ought to have been deleted. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Ta (Appeals), NFAC is not justified in holding that the amendment made by inse…

Ajeet Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…163 (Rajasthan HC) • CIT vs. State bank of Bikaner &Jaipur and Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan HC) • Pr. CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages nrporation Ltd (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 185 (SC) • CIT Vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Born) • CIT Vs. Aimil Ltd (321 ITR 508) (Delhi HC) 7.4 It is pertinent to mention here that various courts have already examined this issue. In cases where the employees share is not made in time, no deduction u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act will be allowed. The provisions of Section 43B which are applicable to employer's contribution…

M/S. Gia India Laboratories Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgia India Laboratory Pvt. Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Ltd., 10Th Floor, Trade Bangalore, Centre, Bandra Kurla 560500 Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccg9457G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ng the return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. We have perused the decision of Honourable jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom) and the case of Ghatgepatil Transport Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom). In the case of Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd, the Hon’ble High Court held that where assessee made payment of employee’s contribution towards PF, assessee’s claim could not be disallowed on account of delayed payment in view of amendment to Section 43B of the Act. In the case of GhatgePatil Transport Ltd., the Hon’ble jurisdictional High…

M/S. Flag Security Services, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(1) -3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1924/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Flag Security Vs. Ito Ward-23(1)-3 Services, 101, Navjyot Mumbai Chs, Near Kadamwadi, St. Anthony Street, Vakola, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaff7581M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar Meena
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 436Section 43B

…Tax Act, 1961 by disallowing the contribution received from employees towards ESI and EPF amounting to Rs. 17,52,805/- with complete disregards to the Decision of Jurisdictional Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Limited [2014] 368 ITR 749/[2015] 228 Taxman 340/53 taxmann.com 141 (Bom.) as the payments have been made before due date specified u/s 139(1) and as such are fully allowable. In view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) & section 436 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being late deposit of employees contribution towards ESIC/EPF which has been duly…

Tegsons India, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Ludhiana

ITA 78/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vibhore Garg, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 18/CHD/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 DCIT, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/o Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ANJPB7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Vibhore Garg, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 09/CHD/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :…

Metalman Auto Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle -1, Ludhiana

ITA 32/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vibhore Garg, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 18/CHD/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 DCIT, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/o Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ANJPB7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Vibhore Garg, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 09/CHD/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :…

Sandeep Gupta, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Chandigarh

ITA 31/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vibhore Garg, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 18/CHD/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 DCIT, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/o Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ANJPB7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Vibhore Garg, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 09/CHD/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :…