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

Shakun Sales Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assessing Officer 4(1), Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 14/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.13 & 14/LKW/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shakun Sales Private Limited v. The Assessing Officer 4(1) 29-30, Mahanagar Lucknow Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAICS1761K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: These are assessee’s appeals against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, both dated 12.11.…

Shakun Sales Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assessing Officer 4(1), Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.13 & 14/LKW/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shakun Sales Private Limited v. The Assessing Officer 4(1) 29-30, Mahanagar Lucknow Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAICS1761K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: These are assessee’s appeals against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, both dated 12.11.…

Dharmendra Tiwari, Lucknow vs. The Assessing Officer 4(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 12/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Dharmendra Tiwari V. The Assessing Officer 4(1) 24, Akansha Eldeco Udyan Ii Lucknow Uttratia Lucknow Tan/Pan:Adfpt4416R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dharmendra Tiwari v. The Assessing Officer 4(1) 24, Akansha Eldeco Udyan II Lucknow Uttratia Lucknow TAN/PAN:ADFPT4416R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 17.11.2021, for Assessment Year 2019-20, ra…

M/S. Rupani Footcare Private Limited, Kanpur Nagar vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 146/LKW/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Rupani Footcare V. The Income Tax Officer Private Limited Ward 2(3)(1) 122/334, Shastri Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr1354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s Rupani Footcare v. The Income Tax Officer Private Limited Ward 2(3)(1) 122/334, Shastri Nagar Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:AAECR1354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 9.11.2021, for Assessment Year 2019…

Mr. Gulrej Ansari, Unnao vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Unnao New

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 139/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 154

…I.T.A. No.138 & 139/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2018-19 & 19-20 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.138 & 139/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2018-19 & 19-20 Mr. Gujrej Ansari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s M. S. Contractor, Ward-2(4), Qadir Bagh, Unnao. Unnao. PAN:AEUPA4534M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 19/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 30/05/2022 O R D E R These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of learn…

Mr. Gulrej Ansari, Unnao vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Unnao-New

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 154

…I.T.A. No.138 & 139/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2018-19 & 19-20 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.138 & 139/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2018-19 & 19-20 Mr. Gujrej Ansari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s M. S. Contractor, Ward-2(4), Qadir Bagh, Unnao. Unnao. PAN:AEUPA4534M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 19/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 30/05/2022 O R D E R These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of learn…

Neeta Tiwari, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer 4(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 125/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Neeta Tiwari V. The Assessing Officer 4(2) 24, Akansha Lucknow Eldeco Udyan Ii Uttratia, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afopt6232J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Neeta Tiwari v. The Assessing Officer 4(2) 24, Akansha Lucknow Eldeco Udyan II Uttratia, Lucknow TAN/PAN:AFOPT6232J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 18.10.2021, for Assessment Year 2019-20, raisin…

M/S R.K. Engineers Sales Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward - 3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 124/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S R. K. Engineers Sales V. The Dcit Limited Ward 3 B-116, 1St Floor Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcr8335D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s R. K. Engineers Sales v. The DCIT Limited Ward 3 B-116, 1st Floor Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow TAN/PAN:AABCR8335D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 24.9.2021, for Assessment Year 2019…

Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 121/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.120&121/LKW/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works v. The ACIT-2 Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 19, A.P. Sen Road Lucknow TAN/PAN:AABCD3687N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: These are assessee’s appeals against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, both dated 30.9…

Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 120/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.120&121/LKW/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works v. The ACIT-2 Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 19, A.P. Sen Road Lucknow TAN/PAN:AABCD3687N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: These are assessee’s appeals against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, both dated 30.9…

Equipment Fabricators, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru

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

ITA 329/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Equipment Fabricators Asst. Director Of Income 136, Khajisonehalli Tax (Cpc) Kanamangala Post Post Box No. 1, Vs. Whitefiled-Hosakote Road Electronic City Post Office Bangalore 560067 Bengaluru 560010 Pan No : Aaafe4613P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 30/07/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.13,85,202/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
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 M/s. Equipment Fabricators Page 4 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 appe…

Ashwath Reddy Nagabhushan Reddy, Bangalore vs. Jurisdictional AO, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 134/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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:- Ashwath Reddy Nagabhushan Reddy, Bangalore Page 4 of 6 "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 wa…

Sharan Fashions, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 133/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Nayak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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 Sharan Fashions, Bengaluru Page 4 of 6 deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by th…

Wave Mechanics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 689/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Wave Mechanics Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 7(1)92) V-3, 1 Main, I Phase Bengaluru Peenya Industrial Area Vs. Bengaluru 560058 Pan No : Aaacw3621J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Smt. Rashmi R., Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 11/10/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.16,21,394/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri. Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
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 M/s. Wave Mechanics Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 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 a…

Bhagwanti Rubber and Allied Products Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 31/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…I.T.A. No.31/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2019-20 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.31/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2019-20 M/s Bhagwanti Rubber and Allied Vs. Dy.C.I.T., Products Private Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), E-4, Site-1, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:AAACB5732D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C. A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 19/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 26/05/2022 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 16/12/2021. In this…

Vikash Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 126/LKW/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…I.T.A. No.126/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2019-20 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.126/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2019-20 Shri Vikas Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 128/12-C Kidwai Nagar, Ward-1(3)(5), Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:AAVPA5702C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C. A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 19/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 26/05/2022 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 18/10/2021. In this appeal the assesse…

M/S Saint-Gobain Indi Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 241/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

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. 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. Saint Gobain India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 240/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 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. 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…

Sk Elecgtricals, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 239/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) – 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…

Amutha, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 238/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh (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…