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 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 250 Section 36(1)(va)Section 1961 Section 40A(7)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

Ken Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 24/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

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

…f return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. KEN Private Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 6 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. Valdel Engineers and Constructors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 126/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

…arly distinguished the facts from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- (a) CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 41 taxamnn.com 100 / 366 ITR 170 / 223 Taxman 398 (Guj.) (b) CIT v Merchem Ltd (2015) 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker) (c) Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 13 / 257 Taxman 120 / 406 ITR (Ker) (d) Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. [2018] 100 taxmann.com (Mad). 7. The CIT(A) thereafter noted that there were contradictin…

M/S. Sattva Media and Consulting Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 124/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Years : 2019-20 M/S. Sattva Media & Consulting Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 294/295, 2Nd Floor, Commissioner Of Amarjyothi Layout, Income Tax, Opp. Egl Tech Park, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Domlur, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aancs2959Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Sudheendhra B R, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. General Ground 1.1 The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Nfac Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Sudheendhra B R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 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.). 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…

Mrm Solutions, Shivamogga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 707/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, 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 deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…

Sri Gajanana Enterprises, Shivamogga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 706/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

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

…f income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Sri Gajanana Enterprises, Shivamogga Page 4 of 7 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…

Shankar Packgings Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 316/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Shankar Packagings Vs. National Faceless Appeal Limited , 303, Turf Centre, Delhi Estate, Shakti Mills New Delhi Lane,Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West) Mumbai – 400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8076P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Apurva R. Shah Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2022 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, 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: “1. In Not Adjudicating The Appellant'S Claim On Merits Of The Issue But Merely Holding That The Appellant Ought To Have Filed An Appeal Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) & Not Against The Order Rejecting The Proposal U/S. 154. 2. In Not Appreciating That By The Said Action The Nfac Has Therefore Approved An Incorrect Act Done Whilst Processing The Return Filed.

For Appellant: Apurva R. 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…

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 2031/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor 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: ITA Nos. 2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20 6 Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT, CPC 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon’ble High C…

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 2030/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor 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: ITA Nos. 2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20 6 Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT, CPC 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon’ble High C…

Bell Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 655/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sanketh Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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…

Muhammed Aftab Alam, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 19/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Muhammed Aftab Alam V. Dcit-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, Sf Colony Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acqpa5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 18.11.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Intimation U/S 154 Sent By Cpc Where By It Processed The Return Of Income Of Appellant For Ay 2019-20 At Rs.26,09,757/-.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R

Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2019-20 Muhammed Aftab Alam v. DCIT-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, SF Colony Lucknow Lucknow TAN/PAN:ACQPA5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date of hearing: 05 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 18.11.2021, for Assessment Year 2019-20, raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred both on facts and in la…

Muhammed Aftab Alam, Lucknow vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, DCIT -6, Lucknow New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 18/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Muhammed Aftab Alam V. Dcit-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, Sf Colony Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acqpa5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 18.11.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Intimation U/S 154 Sent By Cpc Where By It Processed The Return Of Income Of Appellant For Ay 2019-20 At Rs.36,47,045/-.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R

Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2018-19 Muhammed Aftab Alam v. DCIT-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, SF Colony Lucknow Lucknow TAN/PAN:ACQPA5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date of hearing: 05 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 18.11.2021, for Assessment Year 2018-19, raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred both on facts and in la…

Diversified Services, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 55/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Dipak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Agarwal, Sr. D.R

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

…ployees Provident fund contribution before the due date of filing of return and hence, though admittedly, the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax II Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 has taken a position against the assessee, still, the present issue being a highly litigious one, cannot be the subject matter of prima facia adjustments under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee submitted that this certainly is an issue on which two views are possible and hence falls outside the purview of section 143(1)(a) of the Act…

M/S. Almech Facades Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC`, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2087/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

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

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2056/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Vinayak Hirji Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2012/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(Va)Section 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.). 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 4 ITA.NO. 2012/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2017-18) Vinayak Hiraji Mhatre deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging…

M/S. Aashia Products, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2007/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

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

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1986/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…the I.T.Act. The 5 ITA.Nos. 1985 & 1986/MUM/2021 M/s. Sincetele Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 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…

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst/Dy/ Dir of Income Tax CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Paper Recycle, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1960/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri R.D. KhonaFor Respondent: Smt Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)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.). 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 5 ITA.NO. 1960/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2019-20) M/s. Paper Recycle deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging th…

Hipower Support Centre LLP, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 103/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Sushen Srivathsan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…gned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenues case is supported by the following case laws. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) ; (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.); (iii) CIT vs. South India Corpora' Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker); (iv.) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker); (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) 7. The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore. 8. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced…