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

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 286/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: 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 Punniyamoorthy Pillai Department Store, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Circle(OSD)-1, Trichy

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 285/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 Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate)-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…

DCIT 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sodexo Technical Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 508/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…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.). 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 with the provi…

M/S. Ujjain Waste Management Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. WD 15 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2083/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…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.). 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 with the provi…

M/S Soul Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 130/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.130/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Soul Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 601-B, A-Wing, International Trade Cpc, Bengaluru (Karnataka) Centre, Ring Road, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 2927 R (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish R Malpani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar– Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…tted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter after taking into the account the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in SLP filed by assessee against the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Company [366 ITR 170 (Guj.)] 5. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the Revenue submits that issue is covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Company (GSRTS) 366 ITR 170, therefore this appeal should be dismissed. Ld. Sr.DR also submits that again…

Agappe Diagnostics Ltd, Munbai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1931/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Agappe Diagnostics Ltd The Deputy Commissioner Of 401 – 402, Jaisingh Business Income Tax Circle 1 (1) (1) Centre, Sahara Road Mumbai Andheri (E) Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca3940Q

For Appellant: Shri Fizo K JoseFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Bhashkaran SR AR
Section 139Section 143Section 36Section 43B

…in the captioned assessment year. It was also held that provisions of Section 43B (b) applies only to employers contribution. Further reliance on the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in case of CIT versus Gujarat state Road transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) as well as amendment made by the finance act 2021 to Section 36 (1)(va) and Section 43B on the merits also the disallowance was confirmed. Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned authorised representative referred to a paper book containing 30 pages wherein decisions of various judicial authorities were cited to support the ca…

Gea Process Engineering (India) P.Ltd, Gujrat vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4338/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R
Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT, M/s. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 PAN: AAACL0566H (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.148/M/2015 (Arising out of ITA No.4155/M/2015) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Gea Process Income Tax Officer, Engineering (India) Pvt. JCIT- 2(2)(1), Ltd., Mumbai Savli Road, Vs. P.O. Dumad, Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 PAN: AAA…

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Process Engineering ()I) P.Ltd, Gujrat

ITA 4155/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R
Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT, M/s. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 PAN: AAACL0566H (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.148/M/2015 (Arising out of ITA No.4155/M/2015) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Gea Process Income Tax Officer, Engineering (India) Pvt. JCIT- 2(2)(1), Ltd., Mumbai Savli Road, Vs. P.O. Dumad, Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 PAN: AAA…

Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 445/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 445/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2018-2019 Adani Power(Mundra) Ltd., D.C.I.T., Adani Corporate House, Vs. Cpc, Shantigram, Bangalore. Near Vaishno Devi Circle, S.G. Highway, Khodiyar, Ahmedabad-382421. Pan: Aanca2426J

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…The ld. AR before us did not dispute about the disallowance to be made on account of delayed deposit of employee’s contribution towards PF. It was prayed by the learned AR that the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs GSRTC reported in 366 ITR 170 has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme court and outcome of the same is pending. In the event, if the Hon’ble A.Y. 2018-19 3 Supreme court reverses the finding of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court then it should be open for the assessee to revive this appeal within three month from the date of order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. On the…

Preety Arora, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Mumbai

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

ITA 1515/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalpreety Arora Vs. Adit (Cpc) 96, Shanghrila Shahid Karnataka Bhagatsingh Road Colaba 560100 Maharashtra – 400005 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadpa3141M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Pooja Hasrajani Respondent By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Ms.Pooja HasrajaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [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…

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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.). 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 with the provi…

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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.). 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 with the provi…

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), ITA Nos.393 and 452/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 7 Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 9. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by ins…

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 393/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), ITA Nos.393 and 452/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 7 Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 9. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by ins…

Atul Enterprises, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 282/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…filing of return for the year under consideration. We find the identical facts and circumstances of the case the ground of appeal 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. While dealing with this particular aspect of the matter the Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe as follows: “"Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance — Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (Employees contribution) - Whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it…

Adhaan Solution Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 257/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…filing of return for the year under consideration. We find the identical facts and circumstances of the case the ground of appeal 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. While dealing with this particular aspect of the matter the Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe as follows: “"Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance — Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (Employees contribution) - Whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it…

Aqualfil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 950/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 80I

…the provisions of Section 2(22)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 25. Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the issue stood covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of GSRTC Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). I.T.A No. 542 & 448/Ahd/2018 & Ors. A.Y. 2013-14 & 14-15 Page No 13 Aquafil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 26. In view of the above, ground no. 2 is dismissed. 27. Ground no 3 reads as under: 3. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts in confirming the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 49.028/- which is related to reversal of expen…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aquafil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 542/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 80I

…the provisions of Section 2(22)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 25. Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the issue stood covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of GSRTC Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). I.T.A No. 542 & 448/Ahd/2018 & Ors. A.Y. 2013-14 & 14-15 Page No 13 Aquafil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 26. In view of the above, ground no. 2 is dismissed. 27. Ground no 3 reads as under: 3. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts in confirming the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 49.028/- which is related to reversal of expen…

Aqualfil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 448/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 80I

…the provisions of Section 2(22)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 25. Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the issue stood covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of GSRTC Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). I.T.A No. 542 & 448/Ahd/2018 & Ors. A.Y. 2013-14 & 14-15 Page No 13 Aquafil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 26. In view of the above, ground no. 2 is dismissed. 27. Ground no 3 reads as under: 3. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts in confirming the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 49.028/- which is related to reversal of expen…

Hodala Ganapiah Chandrashekar, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

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

ITA 239/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep C., A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…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.). 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 with the provi…