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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation?

1,158 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(3), Section 2(24)(x), Section 250, Section 36(1)(va), Section 1961.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170)

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 224/CHNY/2022[2018-1]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban (FCA) – 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…

Paramount Health Services & Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 2548/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhparamount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari

Section 139Section 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…

K P R Cars Private Limited, Mysore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 91/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K P R Cars Private Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of No. 162, New Bannimantap Income Tax Extn., Mandi Mohalla Vs. Centralised Processing Mysore 570021 Centre Pan No : Aaeck3438R Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hemant Pai, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 .05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 12/11/2021Passed 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 Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi Of Rs.21,63,054/- Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 28.03.2019. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs. 21,63,054/- Was Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution M/S. Kpr Cars Private. Ltd. Page 2 To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

…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:- M/s. KPR Cars Private. Ltd. Page 4 "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 app…

M/S. Surya Enterprise, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 310/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Surya Enterprise Assistant Director Of No. 50, Residency Road Income Tax Bangalore 560025 Vs. Central Processing Unit Pan No : Bangalore Aavfs2416H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 03/12/2021Passed 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 Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi Of Rs.1,56,385/- Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

…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…

Gayathri Papanna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 280/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2019-20 Gayathri Papanna Deputy Commissioner Of #67 4Th Cross, 2Nd Main Income Tax Hosahalli Centralised Processing Centre Vs. Vijayanagar Bangalore Bengaluru 560040 Pan No : Brypp3124J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. R.E. Balasubramaniam, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 03/12/2021Passed 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.11,20,008/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 On 13.10.2019. The Return Of Income Wasprocessed U/S 143(1) Of The Ac, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.11,20,008/- Was Made U/S Gayathri Papanna Page 2 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Shri. R.E. Balasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

…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 Gayathri Papanna Page 4 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…

N. Narasimha Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 237/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt Sumangala Ranga, 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 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…

N. Narasimha Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 236/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt Sumangala Ranga, 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 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. Sun Manufacturing Solutions, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 712/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions The Income Tax Officer Sy. No. 151, 11Th Main Road Ward – 6(2)(1) Peenya Indl. Area, 3Rd Phase Bengaluru Vs. Laggere Village Bengaluru 560058 Pan No : Abyfs6836P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 30/09/2021Passed 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.3,75,531/-, Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 28.03.2019. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.7,65,472/- Was Made U/S M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions Page 2 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts. The Assessee Filed A Rectification Petition Objecting To The Disallowance Made & In The Rectification Order, The Addition Was Sustained To The Extent Of Rs.3,75,531/-.

For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

…return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of M/s. Sun Manufacturing Solutions Page 4 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…

Jupiter Comtex Private Limited., Ahmedabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 938/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Jupiter Comtex Private Limited Dcit Plot No. 510, Phase Iv, Circle 2(1)(2), Gidc Vatva, Ahmedabad Mehmdabad Road, Vatva, Vs. Ahmedabad (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcj 9321 K Assessee By Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2022

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 5

…ayment of Employees’ Contribution to PF/ESI after the due dates under the applicable laws. 11. The issue is squarely covered against the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.), wherein it is categorically held that in the case of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF, the same will not be deductible in computing taxable income under the head “Income from Business or Profession”. The law declared by this decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. Respectfully following the decision…

Shiv Sagar Restaurant Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2442/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshiv Sagar Restaurant Vs. A.O.,Cpc Pvt Ltd,Dharam Prem Bangalore, Apartments,Nehru Road, Karnataka-560500 Vile Parle(East) Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs1285M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jigar Sangani.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Samruddhi Hande.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter ‘The Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Jigar Sangani.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Samruddhi Hande.DR

Section 143(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.). 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…

Axis Carriers & Logisticas Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

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

ITA 159/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh K. MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…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:- 5 ITA.NO. 159/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) M/s. Axis Carriers & Logistics Ltd., "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…

Paramount Health Services and Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 2547/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.2547 /Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2017-18) Paramount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari

Section 139Section 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…

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT, RG-8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2440/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NahtaFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari

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…

M/S. Chemtron Science Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2386/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.2386/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) M/S. Chemtron Science Laboratories Private Limited, El-47, Electronic Zone, Midc, Mahape, Navi Mumbai 400 710. Pan: Aaccc-3596-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-(Nafc) Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Shashank Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

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

…Act dated 16/10/2019 disallowed the aforesaid contributions u/s. 43B of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) assailing the disallowance. The CIT(A) following the decision in the case of Gujarat State Transport Corporation, 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170 and judgments by other non-Jurisdictional High Courts and referring to the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 disallowed assessee’s claim u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee vehemently submitted that the CIT(A) failed to follow the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdi…

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. -8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2113/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NahtaFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari

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…

Assort Staffing Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst Dir of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)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.). 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…

Nm Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 363/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhnm Diagnostics Private Vs. Dcit, Cpc Limited, 32, Bangalore Summerville, Jn. Of 14Th 560500 & 33Rd, Above Bombay Blue Restaurant, Link Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadcr1280P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sunil Hirawat Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 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. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “(1) On Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.2,08,464/Being Belated Payment Of Provident Fund U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act.

For Appellant: Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

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…

Quick Builders, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 301/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhquick Builders Vs. Dcit, Circle 22(1) Plot No. 142, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 08, Piramal Shah House, S.V.Road, Chambers, Lalbaug, Khar, West, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafq0227F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Gyaneshwar Kataram &For Respondent: C.T. Mathews

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

…m/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 6 Quick Builders Vs. DCIT, Circle-22(1) 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…

Malgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2309/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhmalgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cpc, Bangalore 8, Kamala Bhavan 560100 Sharma, Industrial Estates Walbhat Road Ram Mandir (E) 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecm8352L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : B.K. Bagchi Date Of Hearing 13.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 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 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2019-20. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Of Rs. 27,62,936/Being Payment Of Pf & Esic Dues W/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act Considering The Same As Not Deposited On Time Ignoring The Fact That The Delay Was Marginal & Payment Was Made Before Filing The Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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…

Babubhai Jagjivandas, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Banglore

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

ITA 2054/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhbabubhai Jagjivandas Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 128, Vishnu Niketan, Tax(Cpc), Bangalore Prathna Samaj Road, [Acit-19(1)Mumbai] New Charni Road, Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400004 Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafb5829N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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…

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Paramount Health Services & Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

K P R Cars Private Limited, Mysore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

M/S. Surya Enterprise, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Gayathri Papanna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore

N. Narasimha Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

N. Narasimha Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

Jupiter Comtex Private Limited., Ahmedabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Shiv Sagar Restaurant Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

Axis Carriers & Logisticas Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

Paramount Health Services and Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT, RG-8(2) (1), Mumbai

M/S. Chemtron Science Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Bengaluru

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. -8(2) (1), Mumbai

Assort Staffing Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst Dir of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

Nm Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

Quick Builders, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

Malgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Babubhai Jagjivandas, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Banglore