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)

Rajam Polypacks Limited, Rajam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Srikakulam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 258/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.258/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Rajam Polypacks Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer Ponduru Road Ward-2 Rajam Srikakulam [Pan : Aabcr0489G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ya Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/ 1036317185(1) Dated 12.10.2021 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018- 19. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. The Order Passed By Learned Commissioner (Appeals), Dated 12.10.2021 Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.56,448/- & Rs.2,53,947/- By Invoking Provisions Of Sec.36(1A) R.W.S. 43(B) Of I.T.Act Is Illegal & Unjust After Relying On The Amendment Brought By Finance Act, 2021 To Sec.36(5A) R.W.S. (43B).

For Appellant: Shri YA Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasad Rao, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 36

…acle Software Systems, Visakhapatnam ITA 150/VIZ/2019 and ACIT-5(1), VSKP Vs UNITED FREIGHT CARRIERS, VSKP ITA NO.484/VIZ/2018. 7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in applying the decision of Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Gujarat Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) and decision of S.C. in CIT Vs. Atom Exclusions Limited (319 ITR.) wherein the facts considered therein are different. 8. Without prejudice to ground raised already, the authorities below are not justified in making adjustment in the order u/s 143(1) in view of favourable decision available on such disputed disallowance at the relevant time, whi…

Gangaram Bhavanigulam Varma, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 164/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.164/SRT/2022 (AY 2018-19) (Hearing in Physical Court) Gangaram Bhavangulam Income Tax Officer, Varma, Rbl/6/161 Manda Ward-1 Vapi, 8th Floor, Vs Colony, Post Manda Sarigam- Fortune Square-II, 396155 Above TBZ, Chala, Vapi- PAN : AFVPV 7770 C 396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 07.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of 07.12.2022 pronouncem…

M/S. Suresh Electricals, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Suresh Electricals, Vs. Dcit, Ward No.25, Cmc T. S. No.227, Tilak Cpc, Nagar, Khb Colony, Bengaluru. Bellary – 583 101. Pan : Abyfs 9751 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

…tribution and employer's contribution under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. In the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., 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.). 13. Some judicial pronouncements are to the effect that employees contribution paid belatedly but within due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act should be allowed as deduction on payment basis u/s 43B at par with employers' contribution to P…

Bhoruka Fabcons Private Limited, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 910/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Bhoruka Fabcons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.427E, Hebbal Industrial Area, Cpc, Mysuru – 570 016. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccb 9377 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bhargava S. N, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 28.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Calculated In The Prescribed Manner Under The Relevant Act. As Per Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. Bhargava S. N, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

…tribution and employer's contribution under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. In the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., 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.). 13. Some judicial pronouncements are to the effect that employees contribution paid belatedly but within due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act should be allowed as deduction on payment basis u/s 43B at par with employers' contribution to P…

Chase Security, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 796/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Chase Security, Vs. The Ito, No.16/A, 1St Floor, Millar Tank Bund Ward – 6(3)(1), Cpc, Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Aaefc 2412 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2021 By The Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

…tribution and employer's contribution under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. In the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., 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.). 13. Some judicial pronouncements are to the effect that employees contribution paid belatedly but within due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act should be allowed as deduction on payment basis u/s 43B at par with employers' contribution to P…

Vinod Kumar Tandon, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CPC), Begaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 29/ALLD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ned DR has submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order by considering the relevant provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) and by following the judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170. Now, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 143 taxman.com 178. He has relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A). 7. Having considered the claim of the assessee as well as the submissions of the learned DR, at the outset, we n…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Saras Spices & Food Private Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 620/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 478/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 478/AHD/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAGCS6625L And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 620/AHD/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/s. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. Ward-4(1)(1), Vs. Ltd., Ahmedabad. A/3, 4th Floor, Casela Tower…

Shree Saras Spices & Foods P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 478/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 478/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 478/AHD/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAGCS6625L And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 620/AHD/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/s. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. Ward-4(1)(1), Vs. Ltd., Ahmedabad. A/3, 4th Floor, Casela Tower…

Super Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground Number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 260/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Of The Final Hearing Of Appeal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R

Section 35Section 36(1)(va)

…Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRT 266 ITR 170 (Guj). While passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) made the following observations:- “6.1 I find that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. GSRTC [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Gujarat), this case Hon'ble High Court have comprehensively dealt with the issue. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as below: "7.6 Considering the aforesaid provisions of the Act, as per section 2(24)(x), any sum received by the assessee from his employees as I.T.A No. 260/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. 11 Super Seeds Pvt. Ltd. vs.…