CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

ACIT-15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyal

…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…

Concerto Software and Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Concerto Software & Systems Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 15(1)(2), Unit No. 311/312 313, Building 2, Sector Room No. 483, 4Th Floor, 1, Millenium Business Park, Mahape, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Navi Mumbai-400 710. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcc 4006 C Appellant Respondent

…t and therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom), the assessee was Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom), the assessee was Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom), the assessee was eligible for said deduction. However, the Ld. CIT(A) relying upon the eligible for said deduction. However, the Ld. CIT(A) relying upon the eligible for said deduction. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rel…

Central Investigation and Security Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Central Investigation & Dy. Cit, Cpc Security Services Ltd., Bangalore-565050. Vs. Block Q, Dalal Estate, Mumbai Central 400 008. Pan No. Aaacc 6145 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Adiya Sharma Revenue By : Mr. H M Bhatt, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/10/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023

…ew of the , the Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghadge decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Patil Transport Limited 368 ITR 749 (Bombay), which being Patil Transport Limited 368 ITR 749 (Bombay) Patil Transport Limited 368 ITR 749 (Bombay) jurisdiction High Court jurisdiction High Court, no adjustment could have been possible for adjustment could have been possible for the cases falling into the jurisdictional of the Hon’ble Bombay High the cases falling into the jurisdic…

Gravis Hospitality Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.2075/Mum./2021 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) – Graviss Hospitality Ltd. 135–B, Intercontinental Marine Drive ……………. Appellant Netaji Subhash Marg, marine Drive Mumbai 400 020 PAN – AAACT0048E v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Centrallized Processing Centre Bengaluru 560 500 Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ram Krishna Kedia Date of Hearing – 05/10/2023 Date of Order – 06/10/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The prese…

M/S. Shree Mahalaxmi Krupa Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Shree Mahalaxmi- National Faceless Appellate Centre, Krupa Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Shop No.12, National Plaza C.H.S.Ltd., Plot No.144, Takka Panvel, Raigarh, Mumbai-410 206. [Pan: Aaucs 7858 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

…Provident Fund. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not following the binding decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [(2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC)] and the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749, Bom.) wherein it was held that employees' contribution to Provident Fund deposited before the due date for filing the return of income of the assessee company cannot be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and sec.…

Coronation Cigar Co., Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Taxcircle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.1728/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Coronation Cigar Co. 63, Mg Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaefc-3151-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle -17(1) 1St Floor, Kautiliya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 051. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Falee Bilimoria & Furquan Ahemad Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

…order dated 17/12/2019. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that when the assessee had filed return of income, the claim was made on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gadge Patil Transports Ltd., 368 ITR 749 (Bom). There were contrary decisions by non- 3 Jurisdictional High Courts on same issue as well. This makes the issue debatable. In proceedings u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act no disallowance can be made on debatable issue. To support his submission he placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Richa & Company, 252 ITR 40 (Del).…

Royal Strips Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. A.O, .5(3) 91), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

…ove said amounts have been paid before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and hence the same is not liable to be disallowed as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd (368 ITR 749)(Bom). However, the Ld CIT(A) rejected the above said contentions by placing reliance on the amendment brought in the Income tax Act by Finance Act, 2021, wherein it has been clarified that the deduction u/s 36(1)(va) shall be allowed only if the employees contribution was paid within the due date prescribed in the respective Statutes. Aggrieved,…

Mehk Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

…ove said amounts have been paid before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and hence the same is not liable to be disallowed as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd (368 ITR 749)(Bom). However, the Ld CIT(A) rejected the above said contentions by placing reliance on the amendment brought in the Income tax Act by Finance Act, 2021, wherein it has been clarified that the deduction u/s 36(1)(va) shall be allowed only if the employees contribution was paid within the due date prescribed in the respective Statutes. Aggrieved,…

Swastik Total Services Private Limited, Mumbai Subarban vs. CIT Appeal, Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

…ted that the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee at the time when the order was passed. Those two decisions of the honorable Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd 366 ITR 1 and CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd 368 ITR 749 were not reversed by the Supreme Court. It was further stated that as the decision of the honorable Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Private Limited (supra) was rendered purely in the context of merits of section 36 (1) (va) of the Act, the issue still arose whether in any case the disallowance of such payment was within the power unde…

Swastik Total Services Private Limited, Mumbai Subarban vs. CIT Appeal, Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

…ted that the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee at the time when the order was passed. Those two decisions of the honorable Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd 366 ITR 1 and CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd 368 ITR 749 were not reversed by the Supreme Court. It was further stated that as the decision of the honorable Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Private Limited (supra) was rendered purely in the context of merits of section 36 (1) (va) of the Act, the issue still arose whether in any case the disallowance of such payment was within the power unde…

Drishti Lifesaving Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Drishti Lifesaving Pvt. Ltd. Top Floor, Mehta, Mahal, Cpc, 15, Mathew Road, Vs. Benaluru-560600 Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcd0528C

…submitted that on the date of filing of the return and passing of the intimation the jurisdictional High Court decision was in favor of the assessee. According to the decision of the honorable jurisdictional High Court in CIT versus Ghatge Patil transport Ltd 368 ITR 749 such deduction was allowable to the assessee if same is deposited before the due date of filing of the return of income. It was further stated that the jurisdictional High Court decision is binding on the revenue. Accordingly, it was submitted that the adjustment made was beyond the scope of section 143 (1) (a) read with section 143 (1) (a) (iv)…

Mindcrest (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Dir Income Tax CPC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Mindcrest (India) Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Cpc 106, Peninsula Centre, Vs. Bengaluru-560500 Parel, Mumbai-400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccm5872D

…rought in the recent financial Act wherein the delayed payment cannot be allowed as deduction. He relied upon the several decisions of the Hon‟ble High Courts and confirmed the addition. He did not consider decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in 368 ITR 749. A.Y.2019-20 Mindcrest (India) Pvt. Ltd. 05. The Matter reached to the coordinate bench wherein vide order dated 26.04.2022 in ITA No. 1430/Mum/2021 appeal of the assessee was allowed. Later on Ld. AO preferred miscellaneous application before the co-ordinate bench in MA No. 64/Mum/2023 wherein the order of the co-ordinate bench passed earlier, w…

Genesys International Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Banglore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalgenesys International Corporation Ltd, 73A, Sdf Iii, 2Nd Floor, Seepz, Mumbai-400 096 Pan: Aaaca4528L ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-Cpc Bangalore, Karnataka-560500 ..... Respondent

…sprudence wherein it was held that payment made for the employees PF contribution before due of the filling of return of income should be allowed as deduction including the decision in of Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom). 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld AO erred in calculating tax at 30% without considering the fact that the Turnover of the company during the A.Y. 2016-17 (FY 2015-16) was below Rs.50 Crores for calculating the tax rates @25% in A.Y. 2018-19. 4. Without prejudice to the above, o…

Reuters India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while ground no

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…, inter-alia, allowed ground no.22, raised in assessee‟s appeal, pertaining to the disallowance of employees‟ contribution to superannuation fund by following the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd.: [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom). The learned D.R. further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) upheld the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act due to delayed payment towards employee‟s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.C.). Therefore, it w…

Joseph Leslie & Company LLP, Mumbai vs. Circle 22(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Joseph Leslie & Company Llp, Circle 22(1), 3Rd Floor, Leslico House, Piramal Chamber, Vs. Bhavani Shankar Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aahfj 7149 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2023 Order

…e fact that amendment by Finance Act 2021 in section 36(1 )(va) is prospective in nature & not retrospective. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate various judicial pronouncement including CIT Vs GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749) (Bombay HC) Ozer Merchant Co Operative Bank vs Department Of Income Tax (ITAT Pune) CIT Vs Kiccha Sugar Ltd (356 ITR 351) Uttarakhand HC 4. Without prejudice to above Assessee has sufficient bought forward loss to be set off against additions made. 5. Assessee hereby prays to drop the addition made on account of Delayed Payment of PF & ESIC howe…

Umberto Ceramics Int P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

…Act do not apply in case of Employee’s Contribution to Provident Fund. In view of the aforesaid, the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Limited: 366 ITR 1, and CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Limited: 228 Taxmann 340, on which reliance has been placed by the Appellant in the grounds of appeal, would no longer advance the case of the Appellant. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 & 2 raised in the present appeal are dismissed. Ground No. 3 Before the CIT(A) the Appellant had, on a without prejudice basis, 9. claimed that the addition to income, if any, should be s…