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 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

Alert Detective Force, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Alert Detective Force, Vs. Dcit, B 376, 9Th Cross, Peenya 1St Stage, Central Processing Centre, Ring Road, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Abcfa 0594 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh G, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh G, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to 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.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

Mangilal Padamchand, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 25/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Harish, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., 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…

M/S. Pilvo Communications Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 716/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Prashanth G.S., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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…

Waidhan Engineering &Industries Pvt . Ltd Waidhan, Singrauli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 41/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble Accountnt Member & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (Through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTNT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 40 & 41/JAB/2021 (Asst. Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) Waidhan Engineering and Vs. Dy. CIT, Bangalore. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Post Bag No. 17, Plot No. 54 & 56, Udyog Deep Industrial Area, P.O. Waidhan, Distt. Singrauli PAN: AAACW 4013A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sukesh Kumar, CA. Department by : Shri S.K. Halder, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 08/03/2022 Date of pronouncement : 10/03/…

Waidhan Engineering &Industries, Singrauli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 40/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble Accountnt Member & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (Through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTNT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 40 & 41/JAB/2021 (Asst. Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) Waidhan Engineering and Vs. Dy. CIT, Bangalore. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Post Bag No. 17, Plot No. 54 & 56, Udyog Deep Industrial Area, P.O. Waidhan, Distt. Singrauli PAN: AAACW 4013A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sukesh Kumar, CA. Department by : Shri S.K. Halder, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 08/03/2022 Date of pronouncement : 10/03/…

Kiran Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.241/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kiran Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Kiran Compound, Chorasi, Surat, 108, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat-394210. Beside Podar Plaza, Majura Gate, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabck0359C Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Ms Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/03/2022 07/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

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

…he ld. CIT(A). ITA Nos.241/SRT/2021 Assessment Year.2018-19 4. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Company (GSRTC), 366 ITR 170 and contended that appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note thatissue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Puja Chemical (supra) wherein it was held as follows: 5. We have heard both the parties…

Garg Motors, Sirsa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 378/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sharma, 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.179 /Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Arun Rawat The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore/ बनाम Plot No. 1 B Jharmajri ITO, Baddi, Distt: Solan Baddi-173205, Himachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACTPR5420L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ravinder Sharma, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.378 /…

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 328/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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.328 /Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 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 : 07/03/2022 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement…

Arun Rawat, Baddi vs. CIT Appeal, Faceless

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

ITA 179/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sharma, 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.179 /Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Arun Rawat The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore/ बनाम Plot No. 1 B Jharmajri ITO, Baddi, Distt: Solan Baddi-173205, Himachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACTPR5420L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ravinder Sharma, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.378 /…

N.R. Kumaraswamy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 26/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Smt. Mrinalini R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36

…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…

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 334/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…been allowed as the payments were made before the due date of the filing of the ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the PNP Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.,…

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 333/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…been allowed as the payments were made before the due date of the filing of the ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the PNP Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.,…

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 332/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

…been allowed as the payments were made before the due date of the filing of the ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the PNP Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.,…

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 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 340(Guj). Thus, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that to get deduction towards employees contribution towards PF/ESI and other welfare funds, the employer ought…

Munireddy and Sons, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to 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.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

Munireddy and Sons, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to 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.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

Kanthi Agency Networks, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kanthi Agency Networks, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income No.17, 5Th Block, Shivashakthi Road, Tax, Shakthinagara, Centralized Processing Centre, Mysuru – 570 019. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaifk 6664 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to 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.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

Devi Shanker, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, Karnataka

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…va) only if the amount so received from employee is credited in specified account within the due date as per the relevant statute. (iii) Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 (Del.) (iv) Hon'ble Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Gujarat)held that where assessee did not deposit employees contribution in relevant fund before the due date prescribed in Explanation to Section 36(1)(va), no deduction would be admissible even though he deposits the same before due date of ITR u/s 43B. (v) Hon'ble MP High Court in B.S. Patel vs. DCIT reported in 326 ITR 457 (MP) (vi) The dec…

Karni Kehar Security Co-Operative Society Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…va) only if the amount so received from employee is credited in specified account within the due date as per the relevant statute. (iii) Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 (Del.) (iv) Hon'ble Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Gujarat)held that where assessee did not deposit employees contribution in relevant fund before the due date prescribed in Explanation to Section 36(1)(va), no deduction would be admissible even though he deposits the same before due date of ITR u/s 43B. (v) Hon'ble MP High Court in B.S. Patel vs. DCIT reported in 326 ITR 457 (MP) (vi) The dec…

Group Zero, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 250/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…va) only if the amount so received from employee is credited in specified account within the due date as per the relevant statute. (iii) Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 (Del.) (iv) Hon'ble Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Gujarat)held that where assessee did not deposit employees contribution in relevant fund before the due date prescribed in Explanation to Section 36(1)(va), no deduction would be admissible even though he deposits the same before due date of ITR u/s 43B. (v) Hon'ble MP High Court in B.S. Patel vs. DCIT reported in 326 ITR 457 (MP) (vi) The dec…