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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.?

609 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(va), Section 43B, Section 143(3), Section 139(1), Section 115JB, Section 143(1).

CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749)

Astoria Agro & Allied Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 2136/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2136/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Astoria Agro & Allied Dcit-Circle 12(1)(1) Industries Private Limited Room No.223, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ Gate No.187, A/P Katfal M.K. Road Vs. Baramati Mumbai-400 020. Pune-413 102. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaica-4511-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji- Ld. Ar Respondent By : Ms. R. Kavitha - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2014-15 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-20/Dcit-12(1)(1)/11-10645/16-17 Dated 08/11/2017 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…al, we find force in the same. Since the relevant documentary evidences has been placed on record before us, we are inclined to delete the impugned addition in terms of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transport Co. [2014 368 ITR 749]. This ground of appeal stands allowed. 3.3 Disallowance u/s 43B on account of provision for excise duty During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee made a provision of excise duty for Rs.325.98 Lacs. The Ld. AO worked out 4 Astoria Agro & Allied Industries Private Limited Assessment Year :2014-15 disallowance of Rs.102.69 Lac…

M/S. Axis Motors Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 289/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…I.T.A. No.289/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.289/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 M/s Axis Motors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy.C.I.T.-6, 127W-1, 68-69, Saket Nagar, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:AAHCA 0208 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C. A. Respondent by Smt. Alka Singh, D.R. Date of hearing 29/07/2019 Date of pronouncement 31/07/2019 O R D E R This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 07/03/2019 pertaining to assessment…

Alok Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7243/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

…Thus, he submitted, no disallowance can be made keeping in view the provisions of section under section 43B of the Act. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom.). Further, he submitted, while deciding identical issue in assessment year 2008–09, the Tribunal has allowed the claim of deduction. 41. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned DRP. 42. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be see…

The Parbhani District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 2499/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ut the same was deposited on 27.04.2012 much before the date of filing of return of income which was filed on 18.05.2013. He therefore relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported in (2014) 368 ITR 749 submitted that the addition made by the AO and upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) be deleted. Ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to delayed deposit of Employee contribution of Provident Fund. It is…

I.T.O.-6(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Khandelwal Laboratories P.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4262/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Income Tax Officer, 6(3)(4) Vs. M/S. Khandelwal Laboratories R.No.524, 5Th Floor Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 79/78, D Lal Path M.K.Road, Chinchpokli Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 033 Pan/Gir No.Aaack4225E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…hat the entire dues were duly remitted by the assessee on or before the due date of filing of return of income and hence, by respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patel Transport Ltd reported in 368 ITR 749, CIT vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 1 and DCIT vs Hind Filter Ltd., reported in 90 Taxman.com 51, the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance made u/s. u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act in the sum of Rs.93,44,251/- which does not call any interference. Accordingly, ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed.…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed

ITA 1269/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.Sarat Chnadran,AdvocateFor Respondent: 09.07.2019

Section 260ASection 32(1)

…: Nos.2048 and 2049/Mds/2014. It was a prayer that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed. 9. In reply, the ld.AR drew our attention to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., reported in 368 ITR 749(Bom.) wherein the Bombay High Court categorically held that the issue on both employees’ and employer’s contributions are covered under amendment to Section 43B of the Act and the judgment of Supreme Court in C.I.T Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306(SC). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material av…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed

ITA 1268/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.Sarat Chnadran,AdvocateFor Respondent: 09.07.2019

Section 260ASection 32(1)

…: Nos.2048 and 2049/Mds/2014. It was a prayer that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed. 9. In reply, the ld.AR drew our attention to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., reported in 368 ITR 749(Bom.) wherein the Bombay High Court categorically held that the issue on both employees’ and employer’s contributions are covered under amendment to Section 43B of the Act and the judgment of Supreme Court in C.I.T Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306(SC). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material av…

DCIT -CC7(3), Mumbai vs. Kisan Moulding Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3123/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Cent.Cir.7(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Kisan Moulding Ltd K-Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tax Centre, 26A, Chandivali Road, Andheri(E), Mkumbai- 72 Pan :Aacck0640D Appellant Respondednt

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), no disallowance could be made. The assessee had also relied upon 3 ITA 3123/Mum/2018 the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Ghatgepatil Transport Ltd 368 ITR 749 (Bom). The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd (supra) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Organics Ltd 366 ITR 1 (Bom) deleted addition made by the AO towards disallow…

Ass CIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Raman and Weil P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1953/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1953 To 1955/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) Acit-1(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Raman & Weil Pvt. Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. 15, Chetau Marine, B-Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Churchgate, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr5065M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R. Sindhu Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwalla/Nishant Thakkur/Jasmin Amalsadvala सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita. No.1953/M/2017 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.12.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla/NishantFor Respondent: Shri R. Sindhu

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 801B(4)

…ded to the income of the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the assessee deposited the said amount before filing the return of income. In this regard, the law has now been settled by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749) (Bom). If the assessee deposit employee’s contribution funds before due date of filing the return, therefore, in the said circumstances, the claim of the assessee is not liable to be disallowed. In view of the said discussion, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable t…

Dy.CIT, Circle-2, Nagpur vs. M/S Sunvijay Rolling and Enginering Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 161/NAG/2018[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 May 2019AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kasar

…rovident Fund and ESIC. However, the aforesaid payments were made before due date of filing return of income for the impugned assessment year. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749 has held that where the such statutory payments are made before the due date of filing return of income the same is allowable. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed relief to the assessee after examining the facts of the case and by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Nagpur vs. Sanvijay Rolling & Engg.Limited, Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 100/NAG/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 May 2019AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kasar

…rovident Fund and ESIC. However, the aforesaid payments were made before due date of filing return of income for the impugned assessment year. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749 has held that where the such statutory payments are made before the due date of filing return of income the same is allowable. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed relief to the assessee after examining the facts of the case and by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V…

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. M/S Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 514/NAG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 May 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kasar

…rovident Fund and ESIC. However, the aforesaid payments were made before due date of filing return of income for the impugned assessment year. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749 has held that where the such statutory payments are made before the due date of filing return of income the same is allowable. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed relief to the assessee after examining the facts of the case and by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V…

DCIT Cir. 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Gujarat Glass Ltd. (Now Known As M/S. Piramal Glass Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4777/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ssee much before the due date of filing of return of income for the impugned assessment year as per section 139(1) of the Act. That being the case, following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom.), we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground raised. 23. In ground no.5, the Revenue has challenged deletion of addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment on the marketing fee paid to the Associated Enterprises (AE). 13 Gujarat Glass Ltd. (Now known as Piramal Glass Ltd.) 24. Brief fact…

Herrenknecht India P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘के’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “K”, MUMBAI "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी र"वश सूद , "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member and Shri RAVISH SOOD, Judicial Member, IT(TP)A NO.2108/Mum/2017 Assessment Year:-2012-13 M/s Herrenknecht India DCIT, Private Limited, बनाम/ Circle-1(1)(2), GNT Road No.11, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Alinjivakkam Ponneri Mumbai Taluka, Tiruvallur District, Chennai-600067 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AABCH8691J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Ms. Dinkle Hariya राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue b…