CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

Indo Amines Ltd, Dombivali vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

…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…

Indo Amines Ltd, Dombivali vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

…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…

DCIT Cir11(2)(2), Mumbai vs. State Street Syntel Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2179/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income State Street Syntel Services Tax Circle-11(2)(2) Private Limited बनाम/ 421, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan B-101 To 104, Delphi Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Hiranandani Business Park Powai,Mumbai-400 076 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-0964-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2115/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income State Street Syntel Services Tax Circle-11(2)(2) Private Limited बनाम/ 421, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan B-101, To 104, Delph, Vs. M.K. Road,Mumbai – 400 020 Hiranandani Business Park Powai,Mumbai-400 076 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-0964-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…ore due date of filing of return of income and therefore, allowable to assessee in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Limited [48 Taxmann.com 421] and also in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. [368 ITR 749]. Before us, although Ld. DR placed reliance on the stand of Ld. AO but could not place any contrary judgment to controvert the same. This being the case, we find no reason to interfere with the stand of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard. Ground Numbers 6 & 7 stand dismissed. The other grounds are general in nature. The appeal stand dismissed. Conclusi…

DCIT Cir11(2)(2), Mumbai vs. State Street Syntel Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2179/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income State Street Syntel Services Tax Circle-11(2)(2) Private Limited बनाम/ 421, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan B-101 To 104, Delphi Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Hiranandani Business Park Powai,Mumbai-400 076 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-0964-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2115/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income State Street Syntel Services Tax Circle-11(2)(2) Private Limited बनाम/ 421, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan B-101, To 104, Delph, Vs. M.K. Road,Mumbai – 400 020 Hiranandani Business Park Powai,Mumbai-400 076 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-0964-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…ore due date of filing of return of income and therefore, allowable to assessee in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Limited [48 Taxmann.com 421] and also in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. [368 ITR 749]. Before us, although Ld. DR placed reliance on the stand of Ld. AO but could not place any contrary judgment to controvert the same. This being the case, we find no reason to interfere with the stand of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard. Ground Numbers 6 & 7 stand dismissed. The other grounds are general in nature. The appeal stand dismissed. Conclusi…

ACIT 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Food Solutions India P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5781/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Income Tax-13(2)(1) Private Limited बनाम/ 1Stfloor, Gemstar Commercial Complex Room No.146, 1St Floor Vs. Ramchandra Lane Extension Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai -400 020 Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5707/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-13(2)(1) बनाम/ 1Stfloor, Gemstar Commercial Complex Room No.146, 1St Floor Ramchandra Lane Extension Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai -400 020 Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…rporation Ltd [250 Taxman 16(SC) was dismissed by the Supreme Court [Page 301 to 304 of legal paper book]. (ii) CIT v Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd [366 ITR 001 (Bombay HC)] [Page 305 to 309 of legal paper book] (iii) CIT v Ghatge Patil Transports Limited [368 ITR 749 (Bombay HC)] [Page 310 to 314 of legal paper book] Besides the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High court as relied upon by Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. DR could not put forward any other contrary judgment. Upon due consideration, we find that the issue stood squarely covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of our jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court r…

Sodexo Food Solutions India P .Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5781/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Income Tax-13(2)(1) Private Limited बनाम/ 1Stfloor, Gemstar Commercial Complex Room No.146, 1St Floor Vs. Ramchandra Lane Extension Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai -400 020 Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5707/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-13(2)(1) बनाम/ 1Stfloor, Gemstar Commercial Complex Room No.146, 1St Floor Ramchandra Lane Extension Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai -400 020 Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…rporation Ltd [250 Taxman 16(SC) was dismissed by the Supreme Court [Page 301 to 304 of legal paper book]. (ii) CIT v Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd [366 ITR 001 (Bombay HC)] [Page 305 to 309 of legal paper book] (iii) CIT v Ghatge Patil Transports Limited [368 ITR 749 (Bombay HC)] [Page 310 to 314 of legal paper book] Besides the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High court as relied upon by Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. DR could not put forward any other contrary judgment. Upon due consideration, we find that the issue stood squarely covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of our jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court r…

Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…ome and since the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income provisions of section 43B are not applicable to the contributions made to ESIC and PF beyond prescribed date as was held in the case of CIT v. Ghatge patil Transport Ltd [368 ITR 749]. 46. Respectfully following the above decision, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee to delete the disallowance made 34 ITA.No. 5986/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2013-14) M/s. Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited under section 43B in respect of ESIC and PF contribution remitted beyond the due dates by the respective A…

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Krystal Aviation Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…hat being the case, the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), including the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v/s Hindustan Organics Ltd., 366 ITR 001 and CIT v/s Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., 368 ITR 749, clearly apply to the facts of the assessee’s case. As regards disallowance of employer’s contribution to ESIC, undisputedly, such payment is covered by the proviso to section 43B of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative has not controverted the factual finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the aforesaid payments were made…

ITO 6(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Banglore Shirt Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 6(1)(3) V. M/S. Banglore Shirt Company Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 508, 5Th Floor, 115, Cama Industrial Estate, Sun Mill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaacb 2193 G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Income Tax Officer – 6(1)(3) v. M/s. Banglore Shirt Company Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 508, 5th Floor, 115, Cama Industrial Estate, Sun Mill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AAACB 2193 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.L. Jain Department by : Shri V. Vidhyadhar Date of Hearing : 31.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue…

ACIT Cir. 6 (3) (2), Mumbai vs. Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6034/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit, Cir, 6(3)(2), R. No. बिधम/ M/S. Khandelwal 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 79/78, Lal Path, Mumbai-400020. Chinchpokli, Mumbai- 400033. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack4225E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case To Allow Relief To The Assesses By Relying Upon The Order Of The Itat Dated 23.06.2016, In The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The A.Y.2009-10

…ent in view of the finding of the Hon’ble ITAT in ITA. No. 2765 & 2702/M/2014 dated 23.06.2016. It is also argued that the issue no.6 has been covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749) and in the case DCIT Vs,. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd,(363 ITR1) and in the case of Ghatgeatil Transporters Ltd. (368 ITR 749) I. Accordingly, all the issues have duly been covered by the above mentioned cases and accordingly the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy between the parties. For the sake of convincing we reproduced the o…

DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Techno Process Equipments (I) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…te prescribed for filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Hindustan Organics Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 001 (Bom.) and CIT v/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom.), following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) have held that if the employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC is paid before the due date of filing of return 4 M/s. Techno Process of income under section 139(1) of the Act, no disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act can be ma…

Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri Brothers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumartribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.2, Nirmal Lifestyle ……………. Appellant Mall, Lbs Marg, Mulund, Mumbai 400080 Pan – Aacct4365L V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–15(3)(1), Mumbai

…s before the due date of filing of return of income for the impugned assessment year as provided under section 139(1) of the Act. That being the case, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bm.), no disallowance under section 43B of the Act can be made. Accordingly, we delete the 3 Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Brothers Pvt. Ltd. disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Grounds no.1 and 2 are allowed. 5. In ground no.3, assessee has called into question the exercise of power u…

Asst CIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Starflex Sealing India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri A.L. Sainia C I T - 8(2)(2) M/S. Starflex Sealing Room No. 624, Aayakar Bhavan India P. Ltd. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 124, Nagdevi Street Mumbai 400 003 Pan – Aaacn1679B Appellant Respondent

…. Starflex Sealing India P. Ltd. the contention of the assessee and disallowed the same under Section 43B of the Act. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. 368 ITR 749, deleted the disallowance. 5. The learned D.R., on the other hand, vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that this issue has been decided in its favour by the…

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

…thvi Brokers & Shareholders (349 ITR 336). 9.2.As the payment towards PF/ESIC were made within the grace period,therefore, in our opinion,the AO should not have made any disallowance.Relying upon the cases referred to by the AR and the matter of Ghatge Patil (368 ITR 749)of the Hon’ble Bombay we decide the ground in favour of the assessee. 10.Last ground of appeal is about considering the interest income as income from other sources.While computing the income of the assessee, the AO taxed the interest income (Rs.14, 94, 73, 618/-) under the head income from other sources. 10.1.The assessee filed objections before…