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

M/S. Security & Allied Services Inc., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 652/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Ajit V. Ghatikar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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…

Shri. Sundar Madhukaran, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 650/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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…

Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 203/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd.Mig- Vs. Dy.Commissioner / 25 A, Lawsons Bay Colony Asst.Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam Income Tax, Circle-4(1) Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aajcs2286C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Spg Mudaliar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 16.02.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

…e the addition is to be sustained. The Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd. reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) [2014] (Gujarat) reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170 41 taxmann.com 100. 7. We have heard Ld.DR and perused the material placed on record. After considering the facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the view that it is undisputed fact that the payments were made beyond due date of specified time mentioned in the Provident Fund Act. It is also…

Systematic Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 185/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…d that employees’ contribution to provident fund is allowed as deduction, if the same is deposited on or before the due date specified under the provisions of provident fund Act. The D.R. also relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court, reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170, wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that since assessee had not deposited said contribution to respective fund account on the date as prescribed in explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, disallowance made by the A.O. was just and proper. Though, the D.R. relied upon certain judicial precedents which are in favour of the revenue, in…

Systematic Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 184/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…d that employees’ contribution to provident fund is allowed as deduction, if the same is deposited on or before the due date specified under the provisions of provident fund Act. The D.R. also relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court, reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170, wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that since assessee had not deposited said contribution to respective fund account on the date as prescribed in explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, disallowance made by the A.O. was just and proper. Though, the D.R. relied upon certain judicial precedents which are in favour of the revenue, in…

Trio Trend Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 602/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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 3 I.T.A. Nos. 601 & 602/Kol/2021…

Trio Trend Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 601/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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 3 I.T.A. Nos. 601 & 602/Kol/2021…

B D Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 596/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Hotel Embassy, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Kalpajeet Basu Mallik, Kolkata vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 582/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2019-20

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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Gangotri Health Care & Research Pvt. Ltd., Darjeeling vs. CPC, Bagalore(ACIT, Cir. 1, Siliguri), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 580/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Gangotri Health Care & Research Vs. Cpc, Bangalore [Acit, Cir-1, Pvt. Ltd. Siliguri] (Pan: Aafcg7852G) Appellant Respondent

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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Earthbags Export (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 574/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Jayanta Chakraborty, Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Durgapur

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

ITA 568/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Shri Tarit Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. A.O. CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 500/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 499 & 500/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Tarit Kumar Ghosh Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Pan: Adhpg7436L) Appellant Respondent

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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Shri Tarit Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. A.O. CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 499/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 499 & 500/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Tarit Kumar Ghosh Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Pan: Adhpg7436L) Appellant Respondent

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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Orange Securitas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O. Cir. 6(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 490/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Orange Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.O., Circle-6(2), Kolkata (Pan: Aaaco 8239 L) Appellant Respondent

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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Premier Irrigation Adritee Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 481/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 481/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Premier Irrigation Adritec Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata (Pan: Aafcm 4800 Q) Appellant Respondent

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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Diamond Engineering, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 473/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 472 & 473/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Diamond Engineering Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Pan:Aacfd5820F) Appellant Respondent

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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Diamond Engineering, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 472/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 472 & 473/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Diamond Engineering Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Pan:Aacfd5820F) Appellant Respondent

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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Hind Electric & Trading Co., Kolkata vs. CPC/ITO, WD-40(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 464/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20

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 sum belated by paid towards such…