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 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.

Charan Satpal Anand, Pune vs. Asst. DIT, CPC, Banglore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 582/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Shree Balaji Associates Pune LLP, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 580/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Glazium Facades P Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 565/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Glazium Facades P Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 564/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Kalokhe Stone Crusher, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 563/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Dar A1 Handasah Consultants (Shir & Partners) India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Sh Avinash Mahadev Ranade, Ichalkaranji vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 541/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Mohite Electronics P Ltdq, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 533/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Rsg Solutions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi

ITA 1478/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Soni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR) and Ms. Rajeshjwari R., JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…ount in computing the income referred to in section 28 if such sum is not credited by the assessee to the employees‘ account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act. BOMBAY HIGH COURT: [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom): October 14, 2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORTS LTD. The employer assessee would be entitled to deduction only if the contribution to the employee‘s welfare fund stood credited on or before the due date and not otherwise – following the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [SUPRE…

Millennium Properties P Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -14, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 481/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Gtt Communications India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 463/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Gallagher Service Center LLP, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 435/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Nirmal Jyot Facilities P Ltd, Karad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 414/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: PendingITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Capital Constructions, Nashik vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 412/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Joshirao Engineering, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 406/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Nirmal Jyot Facilities P Ltd, Karad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 413/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of…

Zinco Lab Private Limited, Nashik vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 674/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.672/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Seam Engineers, Vs. Asst.Dit, Cpc, Benguluru 95/8, 19 Street, Trimbak Road, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aajfs1685A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.674/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Zinco Lab Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst.Dit, Cpc, Benguluru S4, Jaldhara Complex, Nashik Road, Nashik-422101. Pan : Aaacz1032C Appellant Respondent Assessee By None : Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Different Assessee Directed Against The Respective Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.672/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Are Stated Herein.

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…sallowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 8. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 9. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above (supra) is squarely applicable to the fa…

Seam Engineers, Nashik vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengalure

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 672/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.672/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Seam Engineers, Vs. Asst.Dit, Cpc, Benguluru 95/8, 19 Street, Trimbak Road, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aajfs1685A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.674/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Zinco Lab Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst.Dit, Cpc, Benguluru S4, Jaldhara Complex, Nashik Road, Nashik-422101. Pan : Aaacz1032C Appellant Respondent Assessee By None : Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Different Assessee Directed Against The Respective Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.672/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Are Stated Herein.

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…sallowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 8. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 9. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above (supra) is squarely applicable to the fa…

Neelima Pankaj Thorat, Pune vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 220/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.220/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Neelima Pankaj Thorat, Vs. Asst. Dit, Cpc, Flat No.C/1201, The Bengaluru. Metropolitan, Pimpri Chinchwad Link Road, Chinchwad, Pune- 411033. Pan : Aegpt3582C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shantanu J. Pendse Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 17.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That During The Course Of Proceedings For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore Made Disallowance Of Rs.1,52,21,644/- In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) On The Ground That The Appellant Had Not Deposited

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu J. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…sallowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 7. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 8. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above (supra) is squarely applicable to the fa…

Hero Ecotech Limited, Ludhiana (Punjab) vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Karnataka Bengluru

In the result, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmahero Ecotech Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Ludhiana (Punjab), Cpc, Bengaluru, Phase-Viii, Chandigarh Kannataka, Bengluru Road Focal Point, Mangli, Ludhiana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacch1308R

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Bangal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ration. Ld counsel submitted that the ld CIT(A) had failed to take into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom) and Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Hernia Embrodery Mills (P) Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H). It was submitted that after the Bharat Hotel Ltd (supra) case in PCIT Vs. Pro Interactive Service India Pvt. Ltd in ITA 98/2018 Hon‟ble High court has held that “the legislative intent was/ is ensure that the amount paid is allowed as…