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 367,181 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

Sahana Clothing Company Private Limited, Dindigul vs. PCIT, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 417/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 Yeshwanth Kumar (C.A)-Ld. ARFor 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…

Urc Construction Pvt Ltd., Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 390/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 G. Baskar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor 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…

Hlf Services Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Ward, 2(3), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 370/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

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

…noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: - 7 – ITA No: 370/Chny/2022 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…

Acp Drilling & Construction Pvt.Ltd., Namakkal vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 369/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 S. Gautham Venkatnarayanan (Advocate)-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…

Ms Labels, Tiruppur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 362/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Senthil Kumar (Advocate) -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…

Sapphire Clothing Company (I) Pvt. Limited, Tiruppur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 361/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Senthil Kumar (Advocate)-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…

Ravindran, Tenkasi vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 359/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan (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…

M/S Paypal India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 338/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 R. Aashish (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (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…

M/S. Formoplastic Controls Private Ilimited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 334/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 Naresh Singh Rathore (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. 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…

Super Rubber Mix, Madurai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 1, Madurai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 323/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 M.T. Hariharan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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…

Arun Polymers, Madurai vs. ACIT Non Corpcircle 1, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 322/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 M.T. Hariharan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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…

Deccan Industries, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 320/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 A. Arjunraj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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…

The Ktm Jewellery Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporae Circle-2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 319/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 T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 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…

A K Facility Services Private Limited, Thiruporrur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

Appeal is allowed

ITA 309/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Roopeswari R. (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(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: ITA No: 309/Chny/2022 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 rel…

Dr Axion India Private Limited, Thiruvallur vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 302/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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 Ramesh Colour Match Works, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 300/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 M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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 Maharaj Colour Match Works, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 299/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 M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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 Ramesh Sparklers Facory, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 298/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 M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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…

M/S Saravana Selfavathnam Retail Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT.CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.288/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Sarvana Selvarathnam Retail Adit बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Cpc, No.14, Ranganathan Street, T. Nagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Chennai – 600 017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs-2680-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-06-2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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…

M/S Saravana Selvarathnam Trading & Manufacturing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Benguluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 287/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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…