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 367,154 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 43B Section 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 115JB Section 143(1)Section 148 Section 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 pf section 36(1)(va)section 10aa section 2(24)(x)section 43b section 44a section 2(24)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur vs. M/S. Padamshree Dr. D.Y. Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2135/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

DCIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur vs. M/S. Padamshree Dr. D.Y. Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2134/PUN/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

DCIT, Circle-2, Sangli vs. Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sangli

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2124/PUN/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

Padamshree Dr. D.Y. Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Asst. CIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2122/PUN/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

Shri Chhatrapati Ssk Ltd., Pune vs. Asst. Comm. of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2084/PUN/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

Yashwantrao Mohite Krishna Ssk Ltd, Satara vs. DCIT, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1027/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

Yashwantrao Mohite Krishna Ssk Ltd, Satara vs. DCIT, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1026/PUN/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

ACIT, Cir.1, Aurangabad vs. Sant Eknath Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Aurangabad

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 572/PUN/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 1999-00

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

Shri Vridheshwar Ssk Ltd., Ahmednagar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1437/PUN/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

Manjari Shetkar Ssk Ltd., Latur vs. Jt. Comm. of Income-Tax, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1426/PUN/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 1998-99

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

Manjari Shetkar Ssk Ltd., Latur vs. Dy. Comm. of Income-Tax, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1425/PUN/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 1998-99

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

Manjari Shetkar Ssk Ltd., Latur vs. Dy. Comm. of Income-Tax, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1424/PUN/2011[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 1995-96

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

Manjari Shetkar Ssk Ltd., Latur vs. Dy. Comm. of Income-Tax, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1423/PUN/2011[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 1991-92

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

Pd. Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil Ssk Ltd., Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1418/PUN/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2001-02

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

…eduction of 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 after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not…

Eagle Home Appliances P. Ltd (Formlery Trade Team P. Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT 7(3)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1066/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei

…ome. It is no more res integra that Provident Fund payments made before due date of filing return of income are to be allowed as deduction. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge 4 Patil Transports Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) have held that the payments on account of Provide Fund made before due date of filing return of income are to be allowed as deduction. The Department has not disputed the payment of Provident Fund by the assessee before due date of fi…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the limited aspects of the ground No

ITA 1017/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Alok Industries Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Tower B, 2Nd Floor Income Tax, Peninsula Business Park Central Circle-6(2), G.K. Marg, Lower Parel Air India Building, Marine Mumbai – 400 013 Drive, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca0201C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…turn of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. 5.1. We have heard rival submissions. We find that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., reported in 368 ITR 749 wherein it was observed as under:- “5. While disallowing the claim for deduction, the department contended that payment of employees' contribution had to be made within the due date viz. on or before the 15th of every succeeding month. Admittedly, these payments were not so made but were paid after the due dates. The Assessing Officer, therefore…

Hindustan Apparel Industries, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 215/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.214 & 215/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बिाम/ Hindustan Apparel Acit 21(3), Industries, Piramal Chambers, Unit No. 4, Lower Parel, Mumbai V. Bradys Glady Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400025 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaafh0455J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. Biyani Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 214 & 215/Mum/2018, Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 23.10.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-33/Rg.21/260/2016-17 & 846/2016- 17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Assessment Order(S) Dated 03.03.2016 & 28.12.2016 Respectively Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) Both U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

…Statute concerning PF/ESIC but deposited before I.T.A. No.214 & 215/Mum/2018 the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) for filing of return of income is covered by the judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749(Bom.) in favour of the tax-payer , wherein Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court held as under: “11. The second proviso resulted in implementation problems and which led to deletion of the second proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 and bringing about uniformity in the first proviso by equating tax, duty, cess and fee with contributions to welfare funds…

Hindustan Apparel Industries, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 214/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.214 & 215/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बिाम/ Hindustan Apparel Acit 21(3), Industries, Piramal Chambers, Unit No. 4, Lower Parel, Mumbai V. Bradys Glady Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400025 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaafh0455J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. Biyani Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 214 & 215/Mum/2018, Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 23.10.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-33/Rg.21/260/2016-17 & 846/2016- 17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Assessment Order(S) Dated 03.03.2016 & 28.12.2016 Respectively Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) Both U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

…Statute concerning PF/ESIC but deposited before I.T.A. No.214 & 215/Mum/2018 the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) for filing of return of income is covered by the judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749(Bom.) in favour of the tax-payer , wherein Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court held as under: “11. The second proviso resulted in implementation problems and which led to deletion of the second proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 and bringing about uniformity in the first proviso by equating tax, duty, cess and fee with contributions to welfare funds…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Pranav Agro Industries Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2428/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2428/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Range – 4, Pune …. Vs. Pranav Agro Industries Ltd., 5Th Floor, Nav Maharashtra House, 43, Shaniwar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411030 Pan: Aabcp8009Q अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Ghei प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev GheiFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80ISection 80J

…ident Fund, ESIC and Maharashtra Labour Welfare Fund. 12. The Tribunal had also decided similar issue vide para 15 of the order (supra) and had relied on the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., reported in 368 ITR 749 (Bom) to hold that in case the payments were made before due date of filing the return of income, then no disallowance is to be made under section 43B of the Act. Following the same parity of reasoning, since the assessee has made payments before due date of filing the return of income, there is no merit in making any disallowance 5 under sectio…

Indo Amines Ltd, Dombivali vs. ITO WD 1(5), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1389/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.N. NandgaonkarFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 41(1)

…e assessee before due date for filing of return of income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the M/s. Indo Amines Ltd. decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Limited [384 ITR 749]. 9. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Authorities below. 10. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Limited (supra) held that deduction for payment of employee’s contribution cannot be disallowed in any case contribution to employee’s welfare fund was made on or before for filling return of income. Resp…