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 Paras Valves Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle.II, Jalandhar

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

ITA 102/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…

Amulya Kumar Parida, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 427/BANG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2021AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: ---None---For Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-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…

Zenpower Technologies LLP, Bengaluru vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 426/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.B.S.Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234BSection 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…

Shri Inderjit Bajaj, Jalandhar vs. Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 80/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income; B) Amendment Made By Finance Act, 2021 In Section 36(Va) & Section 43B Is Not Retrospective But Is Prospective Applicable W.E.F. A.Y. 2021-22. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 48,99,708/- Made By The Ao Representing Delay In Remittance Of Employees Contribution Towards Provident Fund & Esi Disregarding The Various Decisions Of The Jurisdictional Hon'Ble Itat, Amritsar & Hon'Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court Relied Upon By The Assessee Which Are Binding On The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 Inderjit Bajaj Vs The Deput / Assistant CIT C-146 C/o Virat Steels, Focal Circle-1, Jalandhar Point, Phas-V, Near Dry Port Ludhiana-141003, Punjab PAN NO. AAOPB0844K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Mittal, CA Shri Harish Puri, CA Revenue by : Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10/11/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 10/11/2021 आदेश आदेश/Order आदेश आदेश PER N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: This is an appeal by…

M/S P. Ram Chand & Company, Jalandhar vs. Deputy/ Asssistanat Comissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 79/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Bhagat,CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…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 P.Ram Chand & Company Vs The Deput / Assistant CIT Basti Nau- Jalandhar-144001 Circle-1, Jalandhar Punjab PAN NO. AABFP6784B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vikas Bhagat,CA Revenue by : Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10/11/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 10/11/2021 आदेश/Order आदेश आदेश आदेश PER N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 31/07/2021 of the Ld. CIT(A),…

M/S Balson Engineers, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Jalandhar

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

ITA 78/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Bhagat, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…mpugned 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…

M/S Perfect Polymers, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (3), Jalandhar

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

ITA 77/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Bhagat, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…mpugned 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…

Woodpeck Deco Products, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

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

ITA 532/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d 43B of the I.T.Act is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that as against 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 assessee’s SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court is pending. Therefore, it was prayed that the A.O. may be directed to follow the outcome of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakunta…

Kaynes Interconnection Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 516/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…tion to PF and ESI, held that only employer’s contribution alone is entitled to deduction u/s 43B(b) of the I.T.Act. The CIT(A) relied on 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.) 3 M/s.Kaynes Interconnection Systems India Pvt.Ltd. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated 21.10.2021). 6. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the amendment b…

Kaynes Interconnection Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 515/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…tion to PF and ESI, held that only employer’s contribution alone is entitled to deduction u/s 43B(b) of the I.T.Act. The CIT(A) relied on 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.) 3 M/s.Kaynes Interconnection Systems India Pvt.Ltd. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated 21.10.2021). 6. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the amendment b…

M/S. Saysoft Tech Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Saysoft Tech Services Private Limited, Vs. Acit, No.38, First Floor, 12Th Main, 27Th Cross, Central Processing Centre, Jayanagar, 4Th Block, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 011. Pan : Aaocs 3596 M Assessee By : Shri. K. Yathish, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.07.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assesse Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.29,41,390/-. In An Intimation Dated 07.05.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 12,98,450/- 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. Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. K. Yathish, 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 Page 4 of 6 CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

M/S. Sterling Urban Developments Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sterling Urban Developments Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, 8, Level – 5 – Prestige Nebula, Circle – 6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp To It Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., Unifac Management Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 244 42019] 260 Taxman 60/[2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad.), CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchant Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker). 7. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2and the amendment to section 43B by insertio…

Kishan Dutt Sharma, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 436/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d 43B of the I.T.Act is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that as against 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 assessee’s SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court is pending. Therefore, it was prayed that the A.O. may be directed to follow the outcome of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakunta…

M/S. Sumathi Nursing & Maternity Home, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore

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

ITA 434/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Pranav KrishnaFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 43B

…d 43B of the I.T.Act is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that as against 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 assessee’s SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court is pending. Therefore, it was prayed that the A.O. may be directed to follow the outcome of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakunta…

Shri Sai Ram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 425/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d 43B of the I.T.Act is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that as against 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 assessee’s SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court is pending. Therefore, it was 4 Shri Sai Ram Enterprises. prayed that the A.O. may be directed to follow the outcome of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal…

Sonicwall Technology Systems India Private Limited ( Formerly Known As Dell Software India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Ward-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 419/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sonicwall Technology Systems India Vs. Ito, Private Limited Ward International Taxation – 1(2), (Formerly Known As Dell Software India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Embassy Tech Village 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Block-F, Devarabisanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaacq 1441 N Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 13Section 139Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchant Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.). 7. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill 2021 was only declaratory / clarificatory in nature and the…

Chandra Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 431/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 43B

…s clarificatory and has got retrospective 4 Sri.Chandra Reddy. operation. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that as against 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 assessee’s SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court is pending. Therefore, it was prayed that the A.O. may be directed to follow the outcome of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakunta…

Everestims Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 408/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…diators and Pressings Ltd., (2003) 129 Taxmann 709 (Madras)Unifac Management Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 244 42019] 260 Taxman 60/[2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad.), CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.). (iv) B.S. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 45742008] 171 Taxman 304 (MP), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) b…

Everestims Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 407/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…diators and Pressings Ltd., (2003) 129 Taxmann 709 (Madras)Unifac Management Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 244 42019] 260 Taxman 60/[2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad.), CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.). (iv) B.S. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 45742008] 171 Taxman 304 (MP), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) b…

Zephyrsun Electro Mech Private Limited, Jaisalmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaisalmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Manish Vyas, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 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…