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 Supermech Infrastructure Private Limited, Mohali vs. ITO-Ward-2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 221/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga, Advocate & Shri Rohit KauraFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
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…

Ef Site Technologies Private Limited, Benglauru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 387/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Amrit Raj Singh, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 436Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon’ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- “Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant’s claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance…

Shakuntala Agarbathi Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

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

ITA 385/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Nishi Padma, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.385/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2019-2020 M/s.Shakuntala Agarbathi The Dy.Commissioner of Company, 123, I Main Road Income-tax (CPC) v. Bengaluru. 7th Cross Chamrajpet Bengaluru – 560 018. PAN : AAOFS8230J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Smt.Nishi Padma, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2021 Date of Hearing : 20.10.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dat…

Shri Raja Ram, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO-Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

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

ITA 192/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

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

Shri Raja Ram, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO-Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

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

ITA 191/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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…

Sanchi Management Services Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ITO-Ward-5(2), Chandigarh

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

ITA 190/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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…

Focus Consultancy Services, Bengaluru vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 60/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shree Hari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
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.). In holding so, the Hon’ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- “Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant’s claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordanc…

Gopalakrishna Aswini Kumar, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 359/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Gopalakrishna Aswini Kumar, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.21 & 22, Autocrat Engineers, Cpc, Phase – 1, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Ablpk 6831 H Assessee By : Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…bution and employer's contribution under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat State Road Page 5 of 7 Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.) wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted 5. 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 2021 was only declaratory / clarificatory in nature and there therefore was applicable wi…

Aspiration Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 341/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 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). 8. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) b…

Aspiration Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 340/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 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). 8. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) b…

M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 315/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon’ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- “Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant’s claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance…

Bevel Gears (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 376/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Gururaj Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon’ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- “Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant’s claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordanc…

Unison Metal Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 170/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr DR
Section 14A

…that though this amount was paid after due date provided in the PF Act, but it was paid prior to the due date of filing of the return. This explanation did not meet the approval of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat as reported in the case of CIT Vs. GSRTC [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) The learned First Appellate Authority has followed this decision and, to our mind, learned First Appellate Authority has not committed any error in upholding the disallowance. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected. 16. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Cou…

Unison Metal Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 169/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr DR
Section 14A

…that though this amount was paid after due date provided in the PF Act, but it was paid prior to the due date of filing of the return. This explanation did not meet the approval of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat as reported in the case of CIT Vs. GSRTC [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) The learned First Appellate Authority has followed this decision and, to our mind, learned First Appellate Authority has not committed any error in upholding the disallowance. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected. 16. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Cou…

99 Hind Suraksha Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 604/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143Section 154

…posit of provident fund and Rs.171402/- on account of late deposit of ESI. 5. Assessee assailed the order before the NFAC but the NFAC was of the firm belief that the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transportation 366 ITR 170 fairly apply on the facts of the case and following the same, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 6. Before me the strong reliance was placed on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Azamgarh Steel & Power Private Limited in ITA No.1626/Del/2020 order dated 31.05.2021. It is the say of the counsel that this Tribunal while de…

Opel Sulz Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

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

ITA 74/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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…

Opel Sulz Private Limited, Bhilwra vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

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

ITA 73/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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…

Santok Sngh Gehlot, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Jodhpur

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

ITA 64/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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…

Wheel O City, Sri Ganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar

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

ITA 63/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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…

Wheel O City, Sri Ganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar

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

ITA 62/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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…