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.

M/S C.D.International, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 98/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…ount in computing the income referred to in section 28 if such sum is not credited by the assessee to the employees’ account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act. BOMBAY HIGH COURT: [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom): October 14, 2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORTS LTD. 25 ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) The employer assessee would be entitled to deduction only if the contribution to the employee’s welfare fund stood credited on or before the due date and not otherwise – following the decision in Commissioner of Inco…

M/S Classic Traders, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Ward-2(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 97/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…ount in computing the income referred to in section 28 if such sum is not credited by the assessee to the employees’ account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act. BOMBAY HIGH COURT: [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom): October 14, 2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORTS LTD. 25 ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) The employer assessee would be entitled to deduction only if the contribution to the employee’s welfare fund stood credited on or before the due date and not otherwise – following the decision in Commissioner of Inco…

Satish Prakash Agarwal, Agra vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 95/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…ount in computing the income referred to in section 28 if such sum is not credited by the assessee to the employees’ account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act. BOMBAY HIGH COURT: [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom): October 14, 2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORTS LTD. 25 ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) The employer assessee would be entitled to deduction only if the contribution to the employee’s welfare fund stood credited on or before the due date and not otherwise – following the decision in Commissioner of Inco…

Surender Kumar, Haryana vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1045/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1045/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Surender Kumar, Vs Adit, M Sahu & Associates, Ca, House No. Cpc, 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Near Union Bangalore Bank Of India, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agupk6911C Assessee By : Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2022

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…ount in computing the income referred to in section 28 if such sum is not credited by the assessee to the employees’ account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act. BOMBAY HIGH COURT: [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom): October 14, 2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORTS LTD. The employer assessee would be entitled to deduction only if the contribution to the employee’s welfare fund stood credited on or before the due date and not otherwise – following the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [SUPRE…

Umberto Ceramics Interanational Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1663/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Yogesh ShahFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ITA No. 163/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2019-20 1 Umberto Ceramics International Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT(A) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Umberto Ceramics Vs. CIT(A) International Pvt. Ltd. National Facelss Appeal 302, Maanav Mansion Mc. Centre, Donald, Sarojini Road, Delhi Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400058 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. :AABCU2672E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Yogesh Shah Respondent by : Achal Sharma Date of Hearing 01.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT…

Vishalakshi Vishwanath, Thane vs. CIT Appeal Thane 2, Thane

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

ITA 1445/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Rupa GamiFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 43B

…ITA No. 1445/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 1 Vishalakshi Vishwanath Vs. CIT(A) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vishalakshi Vishwanath Vs. CIT(A) 102, Eden II, Hiranandani Thane 2 Est. Patlipada, Off Ghodbunder Road, Thane – 400607 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. :ABNPV6379B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Rupa Gami Respondent by : Achal Sharma Date of Hearing 01.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: The present appeal filed by the assessee against the or…

Sangrila Nutri Food Products, Kanpur vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 99/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 43B

…I.T.A. No.99/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2019-20 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year:2019-20 M/s Sangrila Nutri Food Products Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7/189, Shyam Vatika, Ward-2(2)(3), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:ACZFS7814H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C. A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 08/02/2022 Date of pronouncement 08/03/2022 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 18/08/2021. In this appeal the assess…

M/S S.K. Shoes and Boots Private Limited, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(5), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2018-19

Section 43B

…I.T.A. No.110/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2018-19 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year:2018-19 M/s S. K. Shoes and Boots Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-2(3)(5), 84/22, Fazalganj, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:AAUCS9604H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 09/02/2022 Date of pronouncement 08/03/2022 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 31/08/2021. In this appeal the assessee ha…

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

…s so and if a construction results in equity rather than in injustice, then such construction should be preferred to literal construction. We have observed that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Limited reported in (2014) 368 ITR 749(Bom.) held that decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusion (cited supra) shall apply both to employees as well employers contribution to various employees welfare funds , and if the amount towards employee's contribution to employees welfare funds is deposited before the due date prescribed for filing of return of income u/s…

Radford Global Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Radford Global Ltd., Vs Adit, Office No.704, Wellington Business Cpc, Park 1, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri Bangalore. East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400059. Pan-Aabcm5771E Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…the relevant fund before filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act which has been communicated in the response to adjustment u/s 143(1)(a), and the issue is directly covered by jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749); as much, the impugned adjustment ought not to be made. 5.1.2 The appellant filed original return of income on 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.25,65,467/- under normal provisions and Rs.21,97,669/- under MAT [(iii) disallowance of loss claimed. if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the d…

M/S. Icon Engineering Works, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 561/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Raghavendra Maya, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA No.561/Bang/2021: Asst.Year 2019-2020 M/s.Icon Engineering Works The Deputy Commissioner of No.4208, 1st Floor, 10th Cross Income-tax, CPC v. Bangalore Subramanyanagar Rajajinagar 2nd Stage Bengaluru – 560 01. PAN : AADFI4801J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Raghavendra Maya, CA Respondent by : Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 Date of Hearing : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is d…

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

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

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.15/Alld./2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s. Commercial Auto Sales Assistant Director of Income Private Limited v. Tax(CPC), Centralized 4-C, Maharishi Dayanand Marg Processing Center , Allahabad, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (Jurisdictional A0: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Allahabad, U.P.) PAN:AABCC3962F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CA Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 23.12. 2021 Date of pronouncement…

Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt.Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT, CPC/ DCIT Circle -6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Filing Of Return Of Income.” 3. The Ld. Ar Inviting Attention To The Impugned Order

For Appellant: Shri Akshun Gupta,CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 43B

…pellate Authority took note of the fact that there were decisions of various High Courts in favour of the claim namely; Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 408 (Kar); Peerless General Finance & (Calcutta High Court); Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom); AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Rajasthan); TA TE Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan); Lakhani Rubber Udyog (2009) 312 ITR 0014 (154 order) ( Punjab & Haryana), Bihar State Warehousing Corporation ltd. (2017) 393 ITR…

Excel Phosphates Private Limited, Meerut vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Excel Phosphates Pvt.Ltd., Vs Adit, 195-196, Shatabdi Nagar, Delhi Cpc, Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250103 Bengaluru. Pan-Aacce3927B Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2021

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…date as per see 139(1), hence addition to be deleted and payment made to the funds to be allowed as required by sec 36(1)va. The appellant also contended that the judgment of Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 749 and in CIT vs Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd (2014) 399 ITR and the judgment of honourable Supreme Court in CIT vs Alom Extrusion Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 held that the amount paid to PF and ESIC shall be allowed as deduction if the sum is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in case of furnishing the return of inco…

Tml Business Serices Ltd. (Earlier Known As Concorde Motors (India) Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy (Jm) & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Am)

Section 143Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…is aggrieved by the above order for the reason that it is passed exparte without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee as well as in disregard to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Bombay High Court in case of Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd 368 ITR 749 (Bom) wherein it is held that even in case of employees’ contribution, if those contributions are deposited with the respective authorities before the due date of filing of the return of income, though belatedly, as per provisions of the respective Act, disallowance under section 43B of the Act, cannot be made. Therefore, assessee is in appeal be…

Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Addl. CIT Range 6(3)

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2004[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…m)], Vinay Cement, [ 213 ITR 268 (SC)], Bharati Shipyard [11 ITR (Tri) 599 (Mum)(SB)], CIT v. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Ltd [363 ITR 307 (Raj HC)] and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports 47 ITA No. 4753 & 5584/MUM/2004 (A.Y. 2002-03) Grasim Industries Limited, Ltd., [368 ITR 749 (Bom)] and requested the same be adopted in the case of assessee also. 78. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record the coordinate bench has already considered this issue and decided the issue in favour of the assesse in the case of Fluid Air (supra), the relevant findings are given below: “17. Consid…

Newage Fire Protection Engineers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT Appeals National Faceless Appeal, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 680/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmannewage Fire Protection Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 101, Champaklal Udyog Bhavan, Sion, Mumbai-400022. Pan: Aaccn9026C ............ Appellant Vs. Cit (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi. ............ Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Manish Sanghavi, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Kishore Dhule, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Hearing Via Webex

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Sanghavi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Kishore Dhule, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 250Section 28Section 36Section 43Section 43B

…d ESIC of Rs. 10,83,269/on ground that said amount of contribution to ESIC and PF is not paid within due date u/s. 36 (1) (va) 2 The Learned CIT Appeals has ignore the Jurisdiction Bombay High Court decision in the case of Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd (supra) 368 ITR 749 (2015) in which Hon Court has allowed the deductions of Employee’s contribution to PF and ESIC which was paid before the due date of filing the return of Income as per section 43 B but paid after the due date of the respective Acts and considered the decision of Gujarat High Court” 2. Sh. Manish Sanghavi appearing on behalf of the assessee submit…

S. Prince Hightech Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 97/NAG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…lanation 5 to section 43B of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 shall only prospective application and cannot be applied with retrospective effect. Therefore, law laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) still applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The first issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the allowability of belated remittance of employees contri…

Mai Manpower Solutions LLP, Nagpur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 66/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…lanation 5 to section 43B of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 shall only prospective application and cannot be applied with retrospective effect. Therefore, law laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) still applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The first issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the allowability of belated remittance of employees contri…

M/S.Easy Home Appliances, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 114/NAG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…lanation 5 to section 43B of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 shall only prospective application and cannot be applied with retrospective effect. Therefore, law laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) still applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The first issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the allowability of belated remittance of employees contri…