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

Nikhil Mohine, Chhindwara vs. DCIT, CPC, Benguluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…[2000] 242 ITR 114 (Ker); Madras Radiators & Pressings Ltd. (supra); B.S. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 457 (MP); CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 16 ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19 & 2019-20) Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court discountenanced the reliance by the assessee on several decisions taking a different view, which were argued for being followed, thus: ‘Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarabhai Sons Ltd. (supra), by the learned counsel appearing on behal…

M/S. Amicorp Management India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 459/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 234Section 36(1)Section 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. Amicorp Management India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 458/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 234Section 36(1)Section 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 Globe Auto Parts Regd., Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-III, Jalandhar

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

ITA 99/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Nov 2021AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 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…

M/S Globe Auto Arts Regd., Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- III (4), Jalandhar

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

ITA 100/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Nov 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 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…

Dentspro India Private Limited, Bagalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 423/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakraborthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besagani, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ITA No.423/Bang/2021 Dentspro India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AssessmentYear: 2019-20 Dentspro India Private Limited No.3355/1, K.R. Road Banashankari 2nd Stage ACIT Circle-2(1)(2) Vs. Bangalore 560 070 Bangalore PAN NO :AAECD2677H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Raghavendra Chakraborthy, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besagani, D.R. Date of Hearing : 09.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:…

Bikaner Ceramics Private Limited, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore / ACIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Return. The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Jurisdictional High Court Decision. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(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 o…

Prem Kishore Agarwal, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 103/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)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 o…

Dr. Choudhary Hospital and Medical Research Centre Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore / ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 102/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case o…

Dr. Choudhary Hospital and Medical Research Centre Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore / ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 101/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case o…

M/S Varindra Tools Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, II, Jalandhar

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

ITA 97/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: 03.10.2021. 2. That Necessary Fees Was Deposited Well Before Time I.E. 29.09.2021. 3. That Appeal Was Sent To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar On 30.09.2021 Through Courier Well Before Due Of Date Of Filing Of Appeal. It Was Expected That Courier Will Reach Itat Office Well Before Due Date. However, On Receipt Of Letter, We Have Come To Know That There Is Delay Of 2 Days In Filing Of Appeal. 4. That We Are Enclosing Herewith Copy Of Receipt Of Courier & Track Record In Support Of The Fact That Courier Sent On 30.09.2021 Was Delivered In The Office Of Itat On 05.10.2021 Resulting In Delay Of 2 Days. 5. That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Has Happened Because Of Reasons Beyond Control Of Assessee. Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional.

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 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…

Medallay Exports, Jalandhar vs. Assstant Commissioner of Ncome Tax Circle-2, Jalandhar

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

ITA 95/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri J.S. Bhasin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B(1)(b)

…the 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) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (ii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iii) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (iv) 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…

Genesis Trot, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1 (1), Jalandhar

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

ITA 91/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…the 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) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (ii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iii) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (iv) 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…

Shrimati Sneh Lata, Darbar Feed Mills, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2), Jalandhar

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

ITA 19/ASR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Furnishing The Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. When The Matter Was Taken To The Ld. Cit(A) The Said Disallowance Was Sustained.

For Appellant: Shri J.S. Bhasin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(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 cas…

Raga Motors Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 126/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri J.S. Bhasin,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years: 2019-20 Raga Motors Pvt. Ltd, Vs The DCIT GT Road, Vill: Paragpur Circle-4 Jalandhar Jalandhar PAN NO. AABCR7790L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri J.S. Bhasin,Advocate Revenue by : Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11/11/2021 11/11/2021 Date of Pronouncement : आदेश आदेश/Order आदेश आदेश PER N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 14/09/20210 of the Ld. CIT(A), National Face…

Raghu Exports ( India ) Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissoner of Incme Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 125/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri J.S. Bhasin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B(1)(b)

…the 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) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (ii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iii) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (iv) 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…

Raghu Exports ( India) Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 124/ASR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri J.S. Bhasin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B(1)(b)

…the 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) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (ii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iii) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (iv) 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…

Lakshmi Handicrafts, Jalandhar City vs. Asst. CPC / Income Tax Officer Ward-3 (4), Jalandhar

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

ITA 112/ASR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…the 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) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (ii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iii) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (iv) 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…

Shri Suman Sharma Prop. M/S Laxmi Enterprises, Kaputhala vs. Asst. CPC/ Income Tax Offcier Ward-2, Kaputhala

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

ITA 111/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…the 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) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (ii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iii) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (iv) 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…

M/S Nagory India, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Jalanadhar

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

ITA 103/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…the 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) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (ii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iii) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (iv) 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…