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 366,470 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

Calibehr Business Support Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC/ Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalor

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 256/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

…t dispute that the issue of disallowance of late deposited employees' contributions of PF and ESIC stands covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj). He however raised a slightly different contention which did not arise for consideration before this Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra). He submitted that in terms of section 38 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, reference to the time limit for depositing the contributions…

Calibehr Business Support Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessement Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 3227/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

…t dispute that the issue of disallowance of late deposited employees' contributions of PF and ESIC stands covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj). He however raised a slightly different contention which did not arise for consideration before this Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra). He submitted that in terms of section 38 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, reference to the time limit for depositing the contributions…

Sterling Motors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(3), Mumbai

ITA 1/MUM/2022[2018-196]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-196

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rayan Saldhana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…t dispute that the issue of disallowance of late deposited employees' contributions of PF and ESIC stands covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj). He however raised a slightly different contention which did not arise for consideration before this Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra). He submitted that in terms of section 38 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, reference to the time limit for depositing the contributions…

Arun Waman Koli, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 413/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n the issue by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd., (supra), there were also judgments to the contrary in the favour of Revenue by the other High Courts such as CIT Vs. Gujarat- State Road Transport Corporation: 366 ITR 170 (Guj). 13. It is settled legal position that judicial decisions, as a general rule, act retrospectively. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.: 2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) has observed as under: 9 “42. In our judgment, it is also well-settled that a judicial…

Pradman Engineering Services P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 91/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dgment on the issue by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court such as Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd., (supra) there were also judgments to the contrary in the favour of Revenue by the other High Courts such as CIT Vs. Gujarat- State Road Transport Corporation: 366 ITR 170 (Guj). Since the issue was not settled, the judgment of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of GVK Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein there existed prior judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment on the issue when the subsequent judgment was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is settled legal position that judicial decisions, as…

Odex India Solutions P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 147/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dgment on the issue by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court such as Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd., (supra) there were also judgments to the contrary in the favour of Revenue by the other High Courts such as CIT Vs. Gujarat- State Road Transport Corporation: 366 ITR 170 (Guj). Since the issue was not settled, the judgment of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of GVK Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein there existed prior judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment on the issue when the subsequent judgment was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is settled legal position that judicial decisions, as…

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Begaluru

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2057/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dgment on the issue by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court such as Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd., (supra) there were also judgments to the contrary in the favour of Revenue by the other High Courts such as CIT Vs. Gujarat- State Road Transport Corporation: 366 ITR 170 (Guj). Since the issue was not settled, the judgment of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of GVK Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein there existed prior judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment on the issue when the subsequent judgment was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is settled legal position that judicial decisions, as…

Braham Parkash Yadav, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 439/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n has been deleted/ 1. Mahadev Cold Storage v/s AO, Aligarh (ITAT No. 41&42/Agr/2021 dated 14.06.2021) 2. Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company vs DCIT (ITAT No. 05/Jodh/2021) 3. Mohan Ram Choudhary v/s ITO (Jodhpur) 4. State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Gujrat H.C.) 5. Sagan Foundry P. Ltd. vs. CIT (145 DTR 265) (Allahabad H.C.) He further submitted that the above judgements have been delivered after judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. and have similar facts. The ld. AR also submitted that it is a settled law that where different views of two courts are sa…

Macrotech Deveopers Limited (Sucessor to Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-7(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer and assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2040/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor Of Shreeniwas Cotton Dcit, Cc-7(3) Mills Ltd) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor Of Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd) Dcit, Cc-7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl1490J Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri Asif Karmali

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM M/s. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor of Shreeniwas Cotton DCIT, CC-7(3) Mills Ltd) 412, 4th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor of Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd) DCIT, CC-7(3) 412, 4th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (R…

M/S Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Aluva vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 876/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Acit, Vs. Xvi, Keezhmad Panchayat, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Ashokapuram,Aluva, Kochi – 682 018. Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 101. Pan :Aafck 1498 J Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Manu Kurian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…‘delayed’ Employee PF Contribution payment in hands of assessee under provisions of Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the view of the Hon’ble Gujarat and Kerala High Court in CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchant Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) which was to the effect that Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B(b) operate on totally different equilibriums and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment before the due dates specified in the re…

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Processing Engineering India P.Ltd, Gujrat

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1213/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil MotiLala, Adv
Section 143

…o be income u/s. 2(24)(x) and deduction is allowable under sec. 36(1)(va) of Act only if the payment is made on or before the due date for payment ignoring the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 366 ITR 170.” 027. The assessee has raised following grounds in its cross objection CO No. 127/MUM/2017 Arising Out of ITA No. 6494/MUM/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the order of the learned AO is not bad in law even thought the learned AO had failed to make a ref…

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Processing Engineering India P.Ltd, Gujrat

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6495/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil MotiLala, Adv
Section 143

…o be income u/s. 2(24)(x) and deduction is allowable under sec. 36(1)(va) of Act only if the payment is made on or before the due date for payment ignoring the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 366 ITR 170.” 027. The assessee has raised following grounds in its cross objection CO No. 127/MUM/2017 Arising Out of ITA No. 6494/MUM/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the order of the learned AO is not bad in law even thought the learned AO had failed to make a ref…

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Processing Engineering India P.Ltd, Gujrat

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6494/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil MotiLala, Adv
Section 143

…o be income u/s. 2(24)(x) and deduction is allowable under sec. 36(1)(va) of Act only if the payment is made on or before the due date for payment ignoring the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 366 ITR 170.” 027. The assessee has raised following grounds in its cross objection CO No. 127/MUM/2017 Arising Out of ITA No. 6494/MUM/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the order of the learned AO is not bad in law even thought the learned AO had failed to make a ref…

Lioyd Healthcare Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (CPC) Bangalore, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2342/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman () Lloyd Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Dcit (Cpc), Bangalore Unit No.3A, Wing B, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Times Square, Marol 400 020 Andheri Kurla Road Andheri East, Mumbai-400 059 Pan : Aaccl1129L Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)

…), decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of Hitech (India) (P) Ltd vs UOI (1997) 227 ITR 446 (AP); decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT VS Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100/366 ITR 170 / 223; and decision rendered by Hon’Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs Merchem Ltd (2015) 61 taxmann.com 119 and reached the conclusion that Assessee is not entitled for deduction on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution of provident fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 9. Now, the issue in question “as to whether the assesse…

Doddaiah Kavitha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 952/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 Ms. Doddaiah Kavitha, Vs. Dcit, No.1/1, 57Th ‘D’ Cross, 3Rd Block, Central Processing Centre, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 010. Pan : Boypk 6785 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Manishankar S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2022 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Issue Involved In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Employees’ Contribution To Provident Fund & Employees State Insurance Which The Employer Deducts & Pays Over To The Concerned Authorities Beyond The Date Prescribed For Payment Of Such Contribution But Nevertheless The Contribution Has Been Paid Within The Due Date Prescribed For Filing Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Can Be Allowed As Deduction By Applying The Second Proviso To Sec.43B Of The Act. 3. In So Far As The Question Whether The Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Employees State Insurance Which The Employer Deducts & Pays Over To The Concerned Authorities Beyond The Date Prescribed For Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Manishankar S, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…‘delayed’ Employee PF Contribution payment in hands of assessee under provisions of Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the view of the Hon’ble Gujarat and Kerala High Court in CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchant Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) which was to the effect that Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B(b) operate on totally different equilibriums and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment before the due dates specified in the re…

ACIT Central Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 774/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhrydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2704/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 7/8, Roop Nagar, Central Circle-26(1), New Delhi-110007 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcv3062D

For Appellant: Sh. Tanpreet Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Verma, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…Hon'ble High Courts in cases of M/s. Unifac Management Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Corporation Circle 3(2), W.P. No. 5264 of 20 1 8 (Madras), Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. Gujarat Stale Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and ITA Nos. 774, 2704 & 3026/Del/2019 5 Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 280 CTR 381 (KER) and the CBDT’s Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015. 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Rs. 72,00,000/- made by the AO without appreciatin…

ACIT Central Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3026/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhrydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2704/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 7/8, Roop Nagar, Central Circle-26(1), New Delhi-110007 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcv3062D

For Appellant: Sh. Tanpreet Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Verma, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…Hon'ble High Courts in cases of M/s. Unifac Management Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Corporation Circle 3(2), W.P. No. 5264 of 20 1 8 (Madras), Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. Gujarat Stale Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and ITA Nos. 774, 2704 & 3026/Del/2019 5 Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 280 CTR 381 (KER) and the CBDT’s Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015. 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Rs. 72,00,000/- made by the AO without appreciatin…

Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-26(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2704/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhrydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2704/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 7/8, Roop Nagar, Central Circle-26(1), New Delhi-110007 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcv3062D

For Appellant: Sh. Tanpreet Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Verma, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…Hon'ble High Courts in cases of M/s. Unifac Management Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Corporation Circle 3(2), W.P. No. 5264 of 20 1 8 (Madras), Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. Gujarat Stale Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and ITA Nos. 774, 2704 & 3026/Del/2019 5 Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 280 CTR 381 (KER) and the CBDT’s Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015. 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Rs. 72,00,000/- made by the AO without appreciatin…

The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Torrent Power Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 2047/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 80

…bution to ESIC on account of late deposit. 155. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of cross objection is covered against the assessee by the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of GSRTC reported in 366 ITR 170. Thus, respectfully following the same the ground of objection raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Now coming to additional grounds of objection 156. At the outset, we note that the learned AR for the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been instructed not to press the issue raised by it (the assessee) in ground Nos. 1…

The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Torrent Power Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 14/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 80

…bution to ESIC on account of late deposit. 155. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of cross objection is covered against the assessee by the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of GSRTC reported in 366 ITR 170. Thus, respectfully following the same the ground of objection raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Now coming to additional grounds of objection 156. At the outset, we note that the learned AR for the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been instructed not to press the issue raised by it (the assessee) in ground Nos. 1…