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

Shashi Maheshwari, Jodhpur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 58/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…

Arpit Gulecha, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 57/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…

Bray Controls India Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 248/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 248/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bray Controls India P.Ltd. Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) 14, Alindra, Savli Vs Vadodara. Gidc, Vadodara 391 775. Pan : Aadcb 8370 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sulabh Shah From Talati & Talati, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Makwana, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Shah from Talati & Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)

…PF should not be disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. Since no satisfactory explanation was given by the assessee, the ld.AO following judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn vs. CIT, 366 ITR 170 disallowed this amount and added an amount of Rs.21,75,399/- to the total income of the assessee. The first appellate authority confirmed the same with direction to verify whether any of payments made by the assessee towards employees’ contribution of provident fund falls within the grace period or not; and if so, then the same should be allowed.…

Lubi Gel LLP, Jodhpur vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 69/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor 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 cas…

Lubi Gel LLP, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 68/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor 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 cas…

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

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

ITA 60/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosianmohangarh Engineers & Vs The Dcit, Construction Company Circle -1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aanfm4741R

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…

Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 59/JODH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosianmohangarh Engineers & Vs The Dcit, Construction Company Circle -1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aanfm4741R

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…

C G Technosoft Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 52/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor 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 cas…

C.G. Technosoft Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

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

ITA 49/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor 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 cas…

M/S Mplex Networks Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3371/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Joijode, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 3370 & 3371/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mplex Networks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.109, 3rd Floor, K.H. Road, of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 027. Circle 4(1)(2), PAN: AAFCA 3629K Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Yogesh Joijode, CA Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 07.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Account…

M/S Mplex Networks Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3370/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Joijode, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 3370 & 3371/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mplex Networks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.109, 3rd Floor, K.H. Road, of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 027. Circle 4(1)(2), PAN: AAFCA 3629K Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Yogesh Joijode, CA Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 07.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Account…

Ridhi Sidhi Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pali vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 72/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 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…

Ridhi Sidhi Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pali vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 71/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 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…

Manibhadra Udhyog, Pali vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2017-18 Manibhadra Udhyog, Vs. The Dcit, Pali Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aagfm4258G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2021 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 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.” 9. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case…

Swarup Ram, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jodhpur

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

ITA 66/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Akash Phophalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 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…

Swarup Ram, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jodhpur

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

ITA 65/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Akash Phophalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 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…

Inder Bahadur Gurung, Jodhpur vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, ITO, W-3(2), Ju

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

ITA 55/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Mohan Ram Chaudhary, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Acgpc8070L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Muthia Muruganantham, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Abipm1535F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inder Bahadur Gurung, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Pan No: Aempg9230N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Taparia and Miss Divya, CAsFor 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…

Muthia Muruganantham, Jodhpur vs. Jurisdicational Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

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

ITA 54/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Mohan Ram Chaudhary, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Acgpc8070L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Muthia Muruganantham, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Abipm1535F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inder Bahadur Gurung, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Pan No: Aempg9230N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Taparia and Miss Divya, CAsFor 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…

Mohan Ram Chaudhary, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Jodhpur

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

ITA 51/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Mohan Ram Chaudhary, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Acgpc8070L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Muthia Muruganantham, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Abipm1535F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inder Bahadur Gurung, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Pan No: Aempg9230N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Taparia and Miss Divya, CAsFor 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…

The Chodavaram Co-Operative Sugars Limited, Chodavaram vs. The Dy.CIT/ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 25/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d that employees’ contribution to provident fund is allowed as deduction, if the same is deposited on or before the due date specified under the provisions of provident fund Act. The D.R. also relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court, reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170, wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that since assessee had not deposited said contribution to respective fund account on the date as prescribed in explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, disallowance made by the A.O. was just and proper. Though, the D.R. relied upon certain judicial precedents which are in favour of the revenue, in…