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 367,341 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

Arun Kumar Biswas, Bishnupur vs. ITO, Ward-26(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 408/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. Nos. 370 & 408/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19

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…

M/S Jayanta Food Products, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 384/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. Nos. 383 & 384/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 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…

M/S Jayanta Food Products, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 383/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. Nos. 383 & 384/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 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…

Arun Kumar Biswas, Bishnupur vs. ITO, Ward-26(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 370/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. Nos. 370 & 408/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19

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…

Shyamal Banerjee, Purulia vs. CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 502/KOL/2021[502]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 502/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Shyamal Banerjee Vs. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi (Pan:Adupb0408N) 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…

Pragati Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycti (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepragati Fashions P Ltd., Vs. Dycti (Cpc) F.P.No. 455, Shree 1 St Floor, Prestige Sadguru Heights, Alpha, Bhavani Shankar Road, Beratenagrahara, Dadar (W) Hosur Road, Uttahalli Mumbai-400028. Hobli,Bangalore- 560100 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp1730H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.Counsel Respondent By : Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)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.). 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 Pragati Fashions P Ltd, Mumbai. that the payment was not mad…

Tej Pal Gupta, Panchkula vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 382/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 382/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Tej Pal Gupta, The Dcit, बनाम H. No. 346, Cpc, Sector 21, Bengaluru Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaupg1545N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)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…

Shri Vinod Jain, Ludhiana vs. ADIT, CPC/ITO-Ward-7(4), Ludhiana

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

ITA 314/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Smt. Monvica Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “ B ”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी सुधांशु "ीवा"तव, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 314/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vinod Jain The ADIT, CPC/ITO, बनाम 307, Industrial Area A, Ludhiana Ward 7(4), Ludhiana Punjab-141010 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABMPJ9053F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Monvica Kaushal, CA आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 396/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessmen…

Ot Privacy Software Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 755/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Amir, C.A ( A.R.)For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-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…

Ot Privacy Software Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 754/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Amir, C.A ( A.R.)For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-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…

Mr. Ram Pal Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 5(4), Chandigarh

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

ITA 387/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 387/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Ram Pal Singh, The Ito, Ward-5(4), बनाम Sco 68, Chandigarh Ist Floor, Sec. 40-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bawps7303F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Batra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 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…

M/S Magellan Teleservices, Chandigarh vs. ADIT, CPC/JCIT(OSD), Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 257/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 257/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Magellan Teleservices, Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, बनाम H. No. 2146, Sector 35-C, Cpc, Chandigarh Bengaluru "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aanfm3056D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as

ITA 1028/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1027 & 1028/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. East Coast Constructions Tax & Industries Ltd., Central Circle-1(1) 4, Buhari Building, Chennai-34. Moores Road, Chennai-600 006. Pan: Aaace 1662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 02.02.2022
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 801ASection 80ISection 8O

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद%य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1027 & 1028/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s. East Coast Constructions Tax, & Industries Ltd., Central Circle-1(1) 4, Buhari Building, Chennai-34. Moores Road, Chennai-600 006. PAN: AAACE 1662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by :…

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as

ITA 1027/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1027 & 1028/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. East Coast Constructions Tax & Industries Ltd., Central Circle-1(1) 4, Buhari Building, Chennai-34. Moores Road, Chennai-600 006. Pan: Aaace 1662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 02.02.2022
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 801ASection 80ISection 8O

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद%य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1027 & 1028/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s. East Coast Constructions Tax, & Industries Ltd., Central Circle-1(1) 4, Buhari Building, Chennai-34. Moores Road, Chennai-600 006. PAN: AAACE 1662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by :…

Kanishka Basu Mallik, Kolkata vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 27/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Kanishka Basu Mallik Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Pan: Bwapm2770E) 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…

Genesis Intellectuals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 26/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Genesis Intellectuals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Adit, Cpc (Pan: Aagcg2638H) 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…

Maithan Alloys Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 560/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 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 sum belated by paid towards such…

Maithan Alloys Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 559/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

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 sum belated by paid towards such…

M/S. Jesmajo Industrial Fabrications Karnataka Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 751/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, 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…

M/S. R.R. Forgings Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 735/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S.RaoFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 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…