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 367,181 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 National Hospital, Jabalpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 46/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…u/s. 36(1)(va), even as, admittedly, prior to the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the National Hospital v. Dy. CIT relevant years. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), relied upon by the appellant, wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judic…

Bromide Chemical Industries, Jabalpur vs. Dy . Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 39/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Bromide Chemical Industries Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Jabalpur Cpc, Income Tax Department, (M.P.) Bengaluru - 560500 [Pan: Aacfb 3911F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sukesh Kumar, Fca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2021

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…due date specified u/s. 36(1)(va), even as, admittedly, prior to the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year (PB pg. 16). Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), relied upon by the appellant, wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decision, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a), the same could not be decided on merits. The decisions…

M/S. Krishna Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 612/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Krishna Enterprises, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.2 & 23, Next To Lido Mall, Central Processing Centre, Swamy Vivekananda Road, Bengaluru. Milkman Street Junction, Halasuru, Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aabfk 6998 C Assessee By : Shri. Ashok Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 20.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,09,380/-. In An Intimation Dated 29.02.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 1,93,643/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Ashok Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement Page 4 of 6 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…

Akshara Motors Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 574/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.Gururaj Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Capt.Pradeep Shoury ARya, 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. Sanjeev Mehra, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 573/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of 4 ITA Nos.571-573/Bang/2021 M/s.Sanjeev Mehra. 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. Sanjeev Mehra, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 572/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of 4 ITA Nos.571-573/Bang/2021 M/s.Sanjeev Mehra. 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. Sanjeev Mehra, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 571/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of 4 ITA Nos.571-573/Bang/2021 M/s.Sanjeev Mehra. 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…

Sri. P. Purandhara Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 569/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Capt.Pradeep Shoury ARya, 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 4 Sri P Purandhara Reddy appellant in…

Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 6 (1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 341/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
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. 341/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Sukhdev Singh The ITO बनाम House No. 640-B, Phase 11 Ward 6(1) Mohali 160045, Punjab, India Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADHPS2385N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT आयक…

B.L Educational Society, Solan vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO(Exemption) Ward, Solan

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

ITA 313/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 313/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 B.L. Educational Society, The Dcit, बनाम The Mall, Cpc, Bengaluru, Solan Karnataka "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaab0547L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(v)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…

Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO-Ward-1(5), Ludhiana

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

ITA 297/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 297/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)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…

Vtc Transport Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CPC/Jcitosd, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 278/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
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. 341/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Sukhdev Singh The ITO बनाम House No. 640-B, Phase 11 Ward 6(1) Mohali 160045, Punjab, India Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADHPS2385N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT आयक…

M/S J.K.International, Kangra vs. ACIT, Circle, Palampur

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

ITA 301/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri. J.S. Bhasin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B(1)(b)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, 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. 301/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s J.K. International The ACIT बनाम Plot No. 18, Industrial Area, Bai Circle, Palampur Attarian, PO Kanorori, Tehsil Indora, Kangra (HP) "थायी लेखा सं./TAN NO: AAEFJ9527D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. J.S. Bhasin, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenu…

M/S Amit Engineers, Baddi vs. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

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

ITA 299/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 299/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-2020 I) M/S Amit Engineers, The Dcit बनाम Villagae Judi Kalan, Circle, Parwanoo, H.P. Baddi, District, Solan & Ii) Himachal Pradesh - 173205 Adit, Cpc, Banglore "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakfa5620L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…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…

Srinivas Achar Mohankumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 568/BANG/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mahesh Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 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…

M/S. Skava Electric Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 565/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yathish, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint 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…

Binayak Hi-Tech Engineering (P) Ltd, Howrah vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

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…

Aradhana Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

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…

Lanshee Products and Services Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 330/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

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 Lanshree Products & Service Ltd. AYs: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2019-20 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 entitl…

Lanshee Products and Services Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 329/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

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 Lanshree Products & Service Ltd. AYs: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2019-20 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 entitl…