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 367,368 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

Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 58/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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 ITA No.57 & 58/Bang/2022 Shri Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bangalore Page 4 of 6 deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging th…

Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 57/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 40/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

Suman Creation, Mumbai vs. ITO -22 (6) (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 & 2019-20 are allowed and addition made by CPC and confirmed by CIT (A) is directed to be deleted

ITA 1687/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin RomaniFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur

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

…for AY 2019-20. 5. On first appeal, the Ld CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance / adjustment made by the CPC mainly on the following two grounds. a. Relying on decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v Gujarat State Road Corporation [(2014) 366 ITR 170] and PCIT v Suzlon Energy Ltd [(2020) 115 taxmann.com 340]. b. Amendment made to Section 36(1) (va) and Section 43B is clarificatory in nature hence such amendment has to be applied retrospectively. 6. During the year under consideration, the Appellant has paid PF and other welfare fund aggregating to Rs. 7,73,607/- within due date of filing ITR…

M/S. Canadian International School Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 55/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R

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 M/s. Canadian International School Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 6…

Surender Kumar, Haryana vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1045/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1045/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Surender Kumar, Vs Adit, M Sahu & Associates, Ca, House No. Cpc, 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Near Union Bangalore Bank Of India, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agupk6911C Assessee By : Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2022

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…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 10 Surender Kumar 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 Sect…

Rajesh Motors Motocorp Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner Circle-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 47/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Godha (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a

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

…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…

M/S Freaking Amazing Foods Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh

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

ITA 11/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Itr.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. D.R

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 11 /Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Freaking Amazing Foods Private The ITO बनाम Limited Ward 1(3), Chandigarh H.No. 1578, Sector 7C, Chandigarh-160019 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACCF2771J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 14/03/2022 उ…

Transact Bpo Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 51/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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…

Indauto Filters, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 48/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. Gururaj Acharya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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. T. Rahamathulla Khan Associates, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 44/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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…

Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 599/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Karnataka State Electronics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Ttmc “A” Block, Cpc, Bengaluru. Bmtc, Shanthinagar, K. H. Road, Bengaluru–560 027. Pan : Aabck 6661 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ue date of filing return should be considered as allowable expenditure u/s 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961.The Learned CIT(A) has erred in relying the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 when the jurisdictional ITO judgment is binding on the assessee and department. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the amendment made in section 36(1)(va) though the said amendment is applicable from the AY 2021-22 and onwards. In the recent Judgment by Hyderabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P) Li…

ITO-Ward-2(1), Ludhiana vs. M/S Glory Knitwears Pvt.Ltd, Ludhiana

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

ITA 327/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Filing Of Return Wherever Employee'S Contribution Is Disallowed For Once & All If Payment Is Delayed Beyond The Prescribed Time.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.327 /Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The ITO बनाम M/s Glory Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2(1), Ludhiana 31-32, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCG2143E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri S.C. Jain, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 10/03/2022 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement…

Channa Keshava, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 601/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.N.Shyanbhog, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

Atul Global Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 1 (1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 10/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 10 /Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Atul Global Pvt. Ltd. The ITO बनाम D-259, Phase-VIII, Focal Point Ward1(1), Rishi Nagar Ludhiana-141010- Punjab Ludhiana-141001- Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAECA2000K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : None (Written Submission) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearin…

High Tensile Fastnuts (India) P..Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1572/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale&, Shri Gagan Goyalhigh Tensile Fastnuts Vs. Dcit – Cpc (India) Pvt Ltd., Bangalore, 601, 6Th Floor, Karnataka-560100 Goldcrest Business Park, Opposite Shreyas Cinema, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai – 400086. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1190D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Mehul Shah.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul Shah.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)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.). 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…

Satish Engineering Works, Mumbai vs. Central Processing Centre, Bangalore., Judicial Assessing Officer:Ward-21(3)(2), Mumbai, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1028/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

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

…ion 43B when paid beyond the due date for filing return of income under section 139(1). The first appellate authority negated the claim of the assessee by relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170(Guj). The Ld.AR before us, invited our attention to the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the proposition that when contribution had been paid prior to filing of return under section 139(1), assessee would be entitled for deduction:- 1. CIT vs M/s Alom Extrusions Limited - 319 ITR 306(SC) 2. CIT VS Vinay Cement Limited - 313 IT…

Sangrila Nutri Food Products, Kanpur vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 99/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 43B

…I.T.A. No.99/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2019-20 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year:2019-20 M/s Sangrila Nutri Food Products Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7/189, Shyam Vatika, Ward-2(2)(3), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:ACZFS7814H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C. A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 08/02/2022 Date of pronouncement 08/03/2022 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 18/08/2021. In this appeal the assess…

M/S S.K. Shoes and Boots Private Limited, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(5), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2018-19

Section 43B

…rovident 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 IncomeTax Vs 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 Act…

Asian Industries, Solan vs. ITO, Ward, Baddi

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

ITA 8/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 8/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Asian Industries बनाम The ITO Village: Katha, Baddi, Ward, Solan- Himachal Pradesh Tehsil: Nalagarh, Dist: Solan-173212 Himachal Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABUFS1113K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Jaspal Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing…