How many judgments cite CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation?

1,158 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(3), Section 2(24)(x), Section 250, Section 36(1)(va), Section 1961.

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 250 Section 36(1)(va)Section 1961 Section 40A(7)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

employees contribution to pf section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 2(24)section 43b section 43 section 36 section 36(1)section 139(1)section 139 section 143(1)section 13

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

Historic Resort Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

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

ITA 91/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…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…

Arpit Gulecha, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO, Ward-1(1), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR

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

Country Art and Craft LLP, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/JODH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: ShriRajendra Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.85/Jodh/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Country Art And Craft LLP The Asst. CIT बनाम C-24/2,3,4, Marudhar Industrial Circle-1, Jodhpur Area, Basni 1st Phase-342006, Rajasthan "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO:AAJFC6642D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : ShriRajendra Jain, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 10/11/2021 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronounc…

M/S Rampa Motor, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 (5), Jalandhar

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

ITA 76/ASR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vigh, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(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 Jalandhar Leather ( India) Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 75/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 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 M/s Jalandhar Leather Vs The DCIT / ACIT (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, Jalandhar 3-Leather Complex, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar PAN NO. AAACJ7519C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vikas Bhagat, CA Shri K. Bhagat, CA Revenue by : Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 09/11/2021 आदेश आदेश/Order आदेश आदेश PER N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: This is an appeal by the assessee against the o…

Puja Enterprises, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Jalandhar

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

ITA 73/ASR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vigh, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. Synergics, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 506/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

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:- 5 M/s.Synergics. "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 accorda…

M/S Synergics, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 505/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

M/S. Anusha Techno Ventures, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 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. P.R. Forgings Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 421/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)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. Environs Management (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 420/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)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. Infobells Inferactive Solutions, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 411/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Infobells Interactive Solutions, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.12, 2Nd Floor, 8Th V Block, Circle – 4(3)(1), K R Nanjappa Layout, Vs. Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aacfi 7614 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 M/s. Infobells Interactive Solutions, The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, No.12, 2nd Floor, 8th V Block, Circle – 4(3)(1), K R Nanjappa Layout, Vs. Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. PAN : AACFI 7614 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 03.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 03.11.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jud…

Unnat Engineering Private Limited, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposed in above terms

ITA 542/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Unnat Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 16-17, Ambica Nagar Society, Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Vs Hazira Road, Ichhapore, Surat Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Pan : Aaaacu 7439 A Gate Surat Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 2(24)(x)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ing, Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee submits that issue raised by assessee is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj). The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by GSRTC has been admitted Unnat Engineering Pvt. Ltd. by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for hearing on merit. The Ld. AR for the assessee prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A), to decide the matter in accordance with result of Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the assessee b…

Mahesh Agencies, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 522/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Mahesh Agencies, Hyderabad. Pan Aayfm3615M …..Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.C. Devdas. Respondent By : Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2018-19 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 31.07.2020 Passed In Case No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…mpugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case laws. (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) 4 4. The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th Oct., 2…

Shri Yogesh Singla, Ludhiana vs. ADIT, CPC/ ITO-Ward-5(4), Ludhiana

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

ITA 234/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 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)

…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…

Sh. Kulwaran Singh, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-11(3) Pune/ Current Jurisdictional Assessing Officerito-Ward-4, Patiala

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

ITA 230/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 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)

…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…

Sh. Yoginder Pal Singh Grewal, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-11(3)Pune/ Current Jurisdictiona Assessing Officer ITO-Ward-5, Patiala

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

ITA 229/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 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)

…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…

Sh. Yoginder Pal Singh Grewal, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-11(3)Pune/ Current Jurisdictiona Assessing Officer ITO-Ward-5, Patiala

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

ITA 228/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 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)

…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…

Shri Gurmeet Pandher, Patiala vs. ITO-Ward-2, Patiala

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

ITA 227/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr & He Also Ignored The Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision In Favour Of Appellant. 2. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals) Has Wrongly Upheld The Disallowance Of Rs 1275040/- Made By Cpc Under Section 143(1) On Debatable Issue. 3. That The Assessee Craves Of Permission To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Grounds Of Appeal With Approval Of The Hon'Ble Bench.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…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 "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.. 227/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Gurmeet Singh Pandher ITO बनाम C/o Ajay Kumar Jain, CA Ward 2 SCO 80-81, 4rh Floor Sector-17C Patiala Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABIPP4090N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, JCIT सुनवाई क" त…

Harsoria Hospitality, Chandigarh vs. ITO-Ward-5(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 226/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr & He Also Ignored The Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision In Favour Of Appellant. 2. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals) Has Wrongly Upheld The Disallowance Of Rs 706790/- Made By Cpc Under Section 143(1) On Debatable Issue. 3. That The Assessee Craves Of Permission To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Grounds Of Appeal With Approval Of The Hon'Ble Bench.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…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 "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 226/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Harsoria Hospitality ITO बनाम C/o Ajay Kumar Jain, CA Ward 5(1) SCO 80-81, 4rh Floor Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAHFH2572H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, JCIT सुनवाई…