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

Vision Hospitality Services & Consultants Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 225/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 04/05/2022

Section 250Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 225 & 226/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) Vision Hospitality Deputy Commissioner of बनाम/ Services & Consultants Income Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd. CPC, Bengaluru 303, Thakor Vas, Ambali Gam Opp. Limbani Complex, Ambali, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCV5240Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant by : None ""यथ" क" ओर से…

M/S. J and H Projests Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 217/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, 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…

Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, Sonebhadra vs. Dy. CIT, (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…rnataka High Court and Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer. However, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has decided this issue in favour of Revenue in CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170(Guj.) ; Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [Tax Appeal No. 1256 of 2018, dated 15- 10-2018 and PCIT v. Suzlon Energy Limited reported in (2020) 115 taxmann.com ITA No. 16/Alld/ 2021 340(Guj). Thus, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that to get deduction towards employees contribution towards PF/ESI and other welfare fund…

Ticomp Heels Private Limited, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 86/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…I.T.A. No.86/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.86/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2019-20 M/s Ticomp Heels Private Limited Vs. A.C.I.T., 19, Wazir Hasan Road, Range-1, Hazaratganj, Lucknow. Lucknow. PAN:AACCT6198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 09/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 10/05/2022 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 03/09/2021. In this…

Emson Tools Mfg. Corpn. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT/DCIT- 1, Ludhiana

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

ITA 100/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 May 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 138Section 23(4)

…impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (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 Corporation 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) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the…

Bloom Systems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2348/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 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.). 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…

Lalit Kumar Arora, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cr-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 121/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Furnishing The Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. When The Matter Was Taken To The Ld. Cit(A) The Said Disallowance Was Sustained.

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (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 Corporation 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) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case o…

Pankaj Pruthubhai Desai, Surat vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 146/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.146/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pankaj Pruthubhai Desai, Vs. The Adit, Cpc, 1/A-6, D. K. Park, Near Rupali Canal Bengaluru. Bhatar Road, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aappd 7234 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri J. K. Chandani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…allowance thereupon became the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the ground, relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited, reported in 366 ITR 170 [Gujarat]. Counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the issue on hands is squarely covered by this Court in the case of CIT v. GSRTC [Supra]. He, however, submitted that the appeal is pending against the judgment of the High Court before the Supreme ITA.146/SRT/2021/AY.2019-20 Pankaj P. Desai Court and SLP has been granted. The amount invo…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jamnagar vs. Shri Milankumar M. Pobaru, Jamnagar

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 290/RJT/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajai Pratap Singh, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…ncome, the disallowance is not warranted. Hence, deleted.” 12. Before us Ld.DR contended that the issue stands decided against the assessee by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170(Guj) . I.T.A No. 290/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 6 Shri Milankumar M. Pobaru vs. ACIT 13. Ld.Counsel for the assessee was unable to distinguish the decision of the jurisdictional High Court ,but at the same time relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reiterated the contentions made before him in writing before us also as under: “ (ii) Addit…

Vardan Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Income Tax Dept, Mumbai

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

ITA 2344/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvardan Nursing Home Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangaluru Private Limited, Cpc Income Tax 65, Jawahar Nagar, Opp Department Prakash Hotel, Goregaon West, Mumbai – 400062 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccv2156P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

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

Steel Bird International, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 63, New Delhi

ITA 1573/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1573/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Steel Bird International, Vs Jcit, 2E/3, Jhandewalan Extn., Range-63, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfs7296K Assessee By : Sh. Vikas Katyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Katyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ovident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, a similar question came up for consideration before Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170. Therein Assessee collected Rs. 51,06,02,712/- from its employees towards provident fund contribution but deposited Rs. 21,16,61,582/- with provident fund trust. Thus there was a short fall of Rs. 24,89,41,130/-. This amount of short fall was treated by Assessing Officer as income of Assessee vide Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of A…

Orient Craft Ltd., Delhi vs. Asst. DIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 477/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 477/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Orient Craft Ltd., Vs Asstt. Dit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Cpc, D-28, South Extension, Bangalore Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0068M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Arvind Goodhill Suit Manufacturing Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 467/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S.Arvind Goodhill Suit Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Manufacturing Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Naroda Ahmedabad. Pan : Aalca 1964 H

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.DR

Section 139

…d under section 139(1|) of the Act. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that this issue is already covered against the assessee by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 366 ITR 170, against which assessee’s SLP is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court cited (supra) on the issue of payment of employees’ contribution to ESI and PF, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is hereby rejected. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 5.…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle-2(1) (2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 91/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. D.C.I.T., Lambda House, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Opp. Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad-382481. Pan: Aaacl4089R

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsingh B ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 2Section 234ASection 271Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…, we note that the learned Counsel for the assessee before us submitted that the impugned issue has been covered against the assessee by the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj), where it was held as under: 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, and considering section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with sub-clause (x) of clause 24 of section 2, it is held that with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (2…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 409/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsingh B ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 2Section 234ASection 271Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Arvind Goodhill Suit Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1362/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: 26/04/2022

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

…at High Court order in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC and requested that he does not want to contest the appeal. Since ld. A.R. has conceded himself and matter is against him squarely covered by judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of CIT vs. GSRTC 366 ITR 170 wherein it is held as under: "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 as employees' contribution to employees' account in relevant fund ITA No. 1362/Ah…

Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1958/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1958 & 1959/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2017-18 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Mr.R.D. Khona.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Love Kumar.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)

…139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the ITA No. 1958 &1959/Mum/2021 Pravin Electrical Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 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 accordanc…

Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Astt. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore [DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai]

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1838/MUM/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhemkay Facilities Vs. Acit (Cpc), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [Dcit Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 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 Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. that the payment…

One Point One Solutions Limited, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Thane vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1443/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos.1443 & 1444/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2019-20) One Point One Solutions Limited CIT(Appeals), NPAC, T-762, 6th Floor, Tower No.7, Delhi International Infotech Park, Vs. Above Vashi Railway Station, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 PAN/GIR No. AACCD9158 M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ajay R. Singh : Shri R. A. Dhyani Respondent by Date of Hearing : 12.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2022 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J. M.: The present appeals had been fi…

M/S Mahavir Paints and Adhesives Pvt.Ltd, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 20/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Mahavir Paints & V. The Income Tax Officer Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Ward 2(3)(3) 123/760-D, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacm9521B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 20.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has .Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Amount Paid Towards Esic & Epf Of The Employees, Which Amount Being Allowable Both On The Basis Of Interpretation Of The Statute & On The Basis Of The Decision Of The Apex Court In The, Case Of Allom Extrusion 319 Ir 306 (Sc). Pr. Cit Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. & The Allahabad High Court In The Case Of Shagun Foundry Private Limited Vs. Cit ,Ita No. .87 Of 20061 'The Same Be Allowed. 2. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Esic & Epf, Being A Business Expenditure Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Having Been 'Paid Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income, The Same Being An Allowable Business

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s Mahavir Paints and v. The Income Tax Officer Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Ward 2(3)(3) 123/760-D, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:AAACM9521B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 09 03 2022 Date of pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 20.12.2021, for Assessment Year 2019-20, raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Beca…