CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

366 ITR 170High Court2014#38 most cited

What is CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation authority for?

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

1,158

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation · 366 ITR 170 · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 2(24)(x) · employees contribution to provident fund · delayed deposit of PF · disallowance of employee contribution · due date for deposit · welfare fund contributions · EPF Act due date · Checkmate Services

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 1961Section 40A(7)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

employees contribution to pfsection 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 2(24)section 43bsection 43section 36section 36(1)section 139(1)section 139section 143(1)section 13

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Ltd., Varanasi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 29/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…rnataka High Court and Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer. However, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has decided this issue in favour of Revenue in CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170(Guj.) ; Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [Tax Appeal No. 1256 of 2018, dated 15-10-2018 and PCIT v. Suzlon Energy Limited reported in (2020) 115 taxmann.com 340(Guj). Thus, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that to get deduction towards employees contribution towards PF/ESI and other welfare funds, the employer ought t…

Lawkush Sharma, Sonebhadra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (5), Sonebhadra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 23/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K.R.Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…desh High Court has decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer. However, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has decided this issue in favour of Revenue in CIT v. Gujarat 23 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170(Guj.) ; Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [Tax Appeal No. 1256 of 2018, dated 15-10-2018 and PCIT v. Suzlon Energy Limited reported in (2020) 115 taxmann.com 340(Guj). Thus, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that to get deduction towards employees contribution towards PF/ESI and other welfare funds, the employer ought t…

M/S Rugs Mart, Varanasi vs. DCIT, Circle - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

ITA 21/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.N.Jaiswal,AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…l Pradesh High Court has decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer. However, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has decided this issue in favour of Revenue in CIT v. Gujarat 23 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170(Guj.) ; Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [Tax Appeal No. 1256 of 2018, dated 15-10-2018 and PCIT v. Suzlon Energy Limited reported in (2020) 115 taxmann.com 340(Guj). Thus, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that to get deduction towards employees contribution towards PF/ESI and other welfare funds, the employer ought t…

DCIT, CC -3 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Talentpro India Hr Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 459/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s High Courts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon'ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants…

Nexion International Pvt. Ltd.(Known As Simpolo Emilceramica P. Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 574/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Smt.Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2018-19 Nexion International Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, [Previously Known As Simpolo Vs Cpc, Emilceramica Pvt. Ltd.] Bangalore 1102, 1104 & 1105, Shapath V, Opp. Karnavati Club, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad – 380051 Pan : Aavcs 2567 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

…des fairly agree that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nexion International Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT, CPC AY : 2018-19 2 CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.)/ [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Guj.), wherein it is categorically held that in the case of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF, the same will not be deductable in computing income under Section 28 of the Act. It is observed that in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat vs. M/S. Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd, Surat

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

ITA 57/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…e have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj) : 223 Taxman 398 : [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (2014) (1) TML 502 -Guj-HC, wherein it was held that section 43B does not apply to employees contribution. Only section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) is applicable and therefore, employees contribution is disallowed if not paid within due dates prescribed under relevant Provident Fund /ESI…

Shree Durga Syntex Private Limited, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Surat

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

ITA 29/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…e have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj) : 223 Taxman 398 : [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (2014) (1) TML 502 -Guj-HC, wherein it was held that section 43B does not apply to employees contribution. Only section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) is applicable and therefore, employees contribution is disallowed if not paid within due dates prescribed under relevant Provident Fund /ESI…

M/S Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 46/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance…

Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 45/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Total Environment Building Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 40/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance…

Mohd Haseeb, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Range 6(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 76/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jun 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Mohd. Haseeb V. The Ito 551 Jha, Ram Nagar Range 6(2) Kanpur Road, Alambagh Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abcph6980P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because Without Considering The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.23,88,734/- Under Section 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Being Delay In Deposition Of Employees Share Of Provident Fund. 2. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Impugned Addition/Allowance Assessment Order Are Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mohd. Haseeb v. The ITO 551 JHA, Ram Nagar Range 6(2) Kanpur Road, Alambagh Lucknow Lucknow TAN/PAN:ABCPH6980P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 16 06 2022 Date of pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 29.12.2021, for Assessment Year 2018-19, raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Because without considering t…

Ryders Equestrian Products Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 127/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ryders Equestrain Products V. The Dy. Cit Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1)(I) 50-A, 150, Feet Road Jajmau Lucknow Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr3352B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.9.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ryders Equestrain Products v. The Dy. CIT Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1)(I) 50-A, 150, Feet Road Jajmau Lucknow Kanpur TAN/PAN:AAECR3352B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 15 06 2022 Date of pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 29.9.2021, for Assessment Year 2019-20, raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Rs.22,964/- T…

Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Central Circle 13, Delhi

ITA 27/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 27/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., Vs Adit, 7/56, Desh Bandhu Gupta Cpc, Road, Karol Bagh, Central Delhi, Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4873C Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ovident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, a similar question came up for consideration before Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170. Therein Assessee collected Rs. 51,06,02,712/- from its employees towards provident fund contribution but deposited Rs. 21,16,61,582/- with provident fund trust. Thus there was a short fall of Rs. 24,89,41,130/-. This amount of short fall was treated by Assessing Officer as income of Assessee vide Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of A…

The Anup Engineering Ltd.(Merged With Anveshah Heavy Engi. Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 444/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 The Anup Engineering Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, (Merged With Anveshah Heavy Vs Bangalore. Engineering Ltd.) Nr.66 Kv Power Station Odhav Road, Odhav, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaqca 0309 R

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…2019, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) by a very detailed order, confirmed disallowance made by the CPC by relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., 366 ITR 170 and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as follows: 3 “5.1.1 The plea that the adjustment is without the authority of law is rejected as the law stipulates that – “Assessment 143(1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of se…

M/S. D K Trivedi & Sons., Ambaji vs. The DCIT CPC, Bengluru

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 43/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…essee with all his fairness submitted that the issue involved in this particular matter relates to late payment of PF contribution has already been decided against the assessee by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC, reported in 366 ITR 170. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 6. Having heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC (supra) we f…

Gurudev Motors Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 490/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s High Courts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon'ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants…

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. ITO. Non Corp Ward 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 444/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan(C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s High Courts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon'ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants…

ITO, Ward1(1), Trichy vs. Anjappar Chettinad Restaurant, Trichy

Appeal is allowed

ITA 443/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan(C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s High Courts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon'ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants…

Anjappar Chettinad Restaurant Adayar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Cop Ward-15(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 442/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s High Courts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon'ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants…

Sri Mookambika Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, Madurai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 425/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Balakrishnan (for assessee)For Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s High Courts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon'ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants…