CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

DCIT-CC.3(3), Central Range-3 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Oricon Enterprises Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Cc-3(3),Mumbai Vs. 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400 020

…e given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention of the ld. A.R and find substantial force in the same. On a perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT (Central), Pune Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Limited (2015) 368 ITR 749 (Bom), we find that both the employers and the employees contributions to the various employees welfare funds are covered under Sec. 43B of the Act. In our considered view, as the employees contribution towards Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance of Rs. 2,84,472/- were deposited by the assessee prior to the „due date‟ of filing of its re…

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-CC-3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Oricon Enterprises Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Cc-3(3),Mumbai Vs. 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400 020

…e given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention of the ld. A.R and find substantial force in the same. On a perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT (Central), Pune Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Limited (2015) 368 ITR 749 (Bom), we find that both the employers and the employees contributions to the various employees welfare funds are covered under Sec. 43B of the Act. In our considered view, as the employees contribution towards Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance of Rs. 2,84,472/- were deposited by the assessee prior to the „due date‟ of filing of its re…

ACIT 3 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

…rn of income for the year under consideration. Hence, the facts of the case are squarely covered by the decision of the Jurisdictional High in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (48 Taxmann.com 421) and CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749). Respectfully following the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court, the claim of the appellant in respect of employee's contribution towards PF/ESIC 4 A.Y.2012-13 is allowed. Also, find that on identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai, in appellant's own case for AY. 2009-10 in ITA No. 4396/Mum/2013 dated 31-03-2017, has…

DCIT Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cable Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

…d the assessee’s contentions that since the payment was made by the assessee before the due date filing of the return, no disallowance can be made. The Ld.CIT(A) referred to Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 wherein Hon’ble High Court has held that Section 43B is applicable to both employers and employees contribution. Hence, the Tribunal was right in holding that payments thereof are subject to benefits of section 43B. Ld.CIT(A) in this regard also referred to the earlier Ld.CIT(A)’s order in assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 where the issue was si…

Savani Heritage Conservation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

…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 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…

DCIT 14 (2) (1), Mumbai vs. Positive Packaging Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2014-15

…tribution u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom), wherein the Supreme Court decision in the case of Atom Extension Ltd. [319 ITR 306] has been followed, without having regard to the fact that the in that case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the employers contribution whereas the present case involves employee's contribution. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,…

Lily Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Lily Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Unit No. 503, Block No. Ii, Vs. Officer – 10(2)(2) Seepz-Sez, Seepz++, Room No. 350, 3Rd Floor, Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 096 Mumbai Pan No. Aaacl9600J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Aamod Prabhudesai & : Ms. Shubhangi Prabhudesai, A.Rs Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, D.R Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/02/2021

…its return of income for the assessment year under consideration thus no disallowance was therein liable to be made. On a perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT (Central), Pune Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Limited (2015) 368 ITR 749 (Bom), both the employers and the employees contributions to the various employees welfare funds are covered under Sec. 43B of the Act. In our considered view, as the employees contribution towards PF and Employees State Insurance therein aggregating to Rs. 8,65,227/- was deposited by the assessee prior to the „due date‟ of filing of its return o…

Dy.CIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alok Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

…d perusing the records, we find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel of the assessee that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., 368 ITR 749 (Bom) and Hon’ble Supreme Court referred in ITAT order in assessee’s own case as above for the proposition that the said contributions made before the due dates of return or grace period is allowable. Hence, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Before parting, we note that this appeal was heard on 06.02.2020. The pronouncement i…

DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Alok Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

…d perusing the records, we find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel of the assessee that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., 368 ITR 749 (Bom) and Hon’ble Supreme Court referred in ITAT order in assessee’s own case as above for the proposition that the said contributions made before the due dates of return or grace period is allowable. Hence, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Before parting, we note that this appeal was heard on 06.02.2020. The pronouncement i…

DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Alok Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

…d perusing the records, we find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel of the assessee that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., 368 ITR 749 (Bom) and Hon’ble Supreme Court referred in ITAT order in assessee’s own case as above for the proposition that the said contributions made before the due dates of return or grace period is allowable. Hence, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Before parting, we note that this appeal was heard on 06.02.2020. The pronouncement i…

DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alok Industries Limited., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

…d perusing the records, we find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel of the assessee that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., 368 ITR 749 (Bom) and Hon’ble Supreme Court referred in ITAT order in assessee’s own case as above for the proposition that the said contributions made before the due dates of return or grace period is allowable. Hence, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Before parting, we note that this appeal was heard on 06.02.2020. The pronouncement i…

Dy. CIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alok Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

…d perusing the records, we find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel of the assessee that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., 368 ITR 749 (Bom) and Hon’ble Supreme Court referred in ITAT order in assessee’s own case as above for the proposition that the said contributions made before the due dates of return or grace period is allowable. Hence, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Before parting, we note that this appeal was heard on 06.02.2020. The pronouncement i…