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.

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

ITA 902/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…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

ITA 901/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…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 Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…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…

Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 6010/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 &2013-14)

For Appellant: ShriSubodhFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

…36 With regard to ground no. 3 & 4, we notice that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Rajinder 28 I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 Sankalpan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Kumar 362 ITR 241 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. 368 ITR 749(Bom) respectively, has passed its order in favour of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case, we are inclined to accept the submission of Ld. AR. Accordingly, we allow these ground grounds raised by the assessee. 37 With regard to Ground no…

DCIT - Circle -11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tops Securities Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3445/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The D.C.I.T, Circle – 11(3)(1), M/S Tops Security Ltd., Room No. 204, Aayakar Bhavan, 5, Royal Palm Golf Country Club, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Marg, Survey # 169, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Aarey Milk Colony , Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400065 Pan: Aaact0160F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 136/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3445/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Topsgrup Service (I) Ltd., The D.C.I.T, Circle – 11(3)(1), (Formerly Known As Tops Security 2Nd Floor, Room No. 204, Ltd.), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 5, Royal Palm Golf Country Club, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Survey 169, Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400065 Pan: Aaact0160F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 The D.C.I.T, Circle – 11(3)(1), M/S Tops Security Ltd., Room No. 204, Aayakar Bhavan, 5, Royal Palm Golf Country Club, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Marg, Survey 169, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400065 Pan: Aaact0160F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 14A

…n account of the aforesaid disallowance as the action of the Ld. CIT (A) is in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (48 taxman. Com 421) and CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. (368 ITR 749). The Ld. counsel further submitted that since the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, there is no merit in the appeal of the revenue. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the cases relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the assessee. The…

Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2177/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas, D.R &
Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Khorakiwala The Assistant Holdings and Investments Commissioner of Income Pvt. Ltd., Tax-14(2)(1), Wockhardt Towers, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, M.K. Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai PAN: AAACK1955D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The DCIT -14(2)(1), M/s. Khorakiwala Room No.432, 4th Floor, Holdings and Investments Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, Vs. Wockhardt Towers, Marine Lines, Bandr…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2018/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…n tax audit report by relying on the provision of section 2(24) (x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) fo the Act. The Ld.CIT(A), by following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court of in the case of Hindustan Organics Ltd. 48 taxmann.com 42 and Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749, deleted the additions made by the Ld. AO. 64. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional high Court, in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.(supra), where it was held that if, payments have been made on or before due date of filing return of incom…

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4077/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 3569/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 3570/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 3571/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/s. Export Credit Guarantee ACIT-3(1)(2) Vs. Corporation of India Ltd. Room No. 607 5th Floor, Nirmal Building Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point M.K. Road Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 4076/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 4077/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 4078/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 201…

Ecgc Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3569/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 3569/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 3570/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 3571/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/s. Export Credit Guarantee ACIT-3(1)(2) Vs. Corporation of India Ltd. Room No. 607 5th Floor, Nirmal Building Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point M.K. Road Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 4076/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 4077/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 4078/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 201…

Autoline Industries Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 970/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 970 & 2983/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Autoline Industries Limited. S. No.313-314 & 320-323, Nanewarwadi, Chakan, Pune-410501. Pan : Aabca4534D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, CIT
Section 115JSection 14Section 14A

…nsport Corporation (2014) (41 taxmann.com 100). 23. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gatge Patil Transporters ( ITA No.1002 & 1034 of 2012), 368 ITR 749 wherein relying upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 holding that the amendment of Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature and it was held that delayed payments of employee‟s contribution to PF cannot be disallowed if the same have been paid prior to due date of fil…

Autoline Industries Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2983/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 970 & 2983/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Autoline Industries Limited. S. No.313-314 & 320-323, Nanewarwadi, Chakan, Pune-410501. Pan : Aabca4534D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, CIT
Section 115JSection 14Section 14A

…nsport Corporation (2014) (41 taxmann.com 100). 23. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gatge Patil Transporters ( ITA No.1002 & 1034 of 2012), 368 ITR 749 wherein relying upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 holding that the amendment of Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature and it was held that delayed payments of employee‟s contribution to PF cannot be disallowed if the same have been paid prior to due date of fil…

Minilec India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1147/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e deposited with the appropriate authorities before the filing of return of income. In such a situation, he submitted that the issue is covered in assessee’s favour by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil reported in 368 ITR 749. He therefore submitted that considering the totality of the facts, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 6. On the issue of condonation of delay of appeal, I have gone through the sworn affidavit filed by the assessee and heard the Ld.A.R. It is an undisputed fact that there was delay of 1644 days. It is also a fact that assessee has poi…

Khimji K.D. Sons Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 269/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.269/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Khimji K.D. Sons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Plot No.621/A, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pin-751007 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabck 3660 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Bivek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…following decisions of the various High Courts are in favour of the assessee allowing deduction of employee’s contribution paid beyond due date: (i) CIT vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Limited – 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) (iii) CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. – 321 ITR 508 (Del.) (iv) Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd vs CIT – 215 Taxman 597 (Kar.) (v) CIT vs. Raj Agro Industries Ltd. – 334 ITR 122 (P&H) o (vi) CIT vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. – 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) (vii) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. – 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) 6 6. In following decisi…

Interex Arch Design, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4789/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)Section 43B

…PF Contribution, though it was deposited before the due date of filing return of income. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that this ground of appeal is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. [368 ITR 749 (Bom)]. 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 15. We have considered the submission of both the parties and gone through the order of lower authorities. We have also gone through the various documentary evidences furnished by assessee from the record. We find that the assessee while computi…

R.J.Trade Wings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle- 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5770/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S R.J. Trade Wings Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. 18/20, Dubash Marg, Vs. Tax, Circle-2(3)(2), Aayakar Kala Ghoda, Fort, Mumbai- Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai- 400020. 400020. Pan No. Aabcr1467J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aniket Shet, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(2)Section 43B

…(Tax Appeal No. 637 of 2013) and confirmed the above disallowance made by the AO. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the above issue is decided by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 and the same may be followed. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relies on the order passed by the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that in Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that both employee’s and employer’s co…

Milind Gupta, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is partly

ITA 382/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Jagabandhu Sahu/Goutam Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…following decisions of the various High Courts are in favour of the assessee allowing deduction of employee’s contribution paid beyond due date: (i) CIT vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Limited – 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) (iii) CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. – 321 ITR 508 (Del.) P a g e 2 | 11 ITA Nos. 382 & 383/CTK/2017 Asse ssment Years : 2 031 -14 & 20 14- 15 (iv) Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd vs CIT – 215 Taxman 597 (Kar.) (v) CIT vs. Raj Agro Industries Ltd. – 334 ITR 122 (P&H) o (vi) CIT vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. – 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) o (vii) CIT…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Bhima S.S.K. Ltd., Solapur

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 847/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

…eduction on delayed deposit of employees share in Provident Fund scheme but before due date of filing return of income is no more res integra. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749 following the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to the assessees in respect of statutory payment of Provident Fund is to be allowed only on actual payment before the due date of filing return of income. In the present set of appeals it is not disputed by the Revenue that…

Majalgaon S.S.K. Ltd., Beed vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 830/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

…eduction on delayed deposit of employees share in Provident Fund scheme but before due date of filing return of income is no more res integra. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749 following the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to the assessees in respect of statutory payment of Provident Fund is to be allowed only on actual payment before the due date of filing return of income. In the present set of appeals it is not disputed by the Revenue that…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Vitthal S.S.K. Ltd., Solapur

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 824/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

…eduction on delayed deposit of employees share in Provident Fund scheme but before due date of filing return of income is no more res integra. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749 following the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to the assessees in respect of statutory payment of Provident Fund is to be allowed only on actual payment before the due date of filing return of income. In the present set of appeals it is not disputed by the Revenue that…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shree Pandurang S.S.K. Ltd., Solapur

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 823/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

…eduction on delayed deposit of employees share in Provident Fund scheme but before due date of filing return of income is no more res integra. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749 following the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to the assessees in respect of statutory payment of Provident Fund is to be allowed only on actual payment before the due date of filing return of income. In the present set of appeals it is not disputed by the Revenue that…