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

Reliant Investigation and Security Services, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.144/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Reliant Investigation & Security Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Ward-2(5) Lig-C-556, Ground Floor Visakhapatnam Sagar Nagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aakfr4627C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 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…

Ippili Srinivasa Rao, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.133/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Ippili Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.21-3-199/4 Ward-2 Ippiliveedhi Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Bijps7510K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 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…

Focus Trans Tech Shipping Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Range-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.132/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S Focus Trans Tech Shipping Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Private Ltd. Circle-3(1) 402, 9-29-19/A, Waltair Heights Visakhapatnam Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcf3074H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2021 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 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…

S.V. .Engineering Constructions India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S S.V.Engineering Constructions Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax India (P) Ltd. Circle-3(1) B-Block, 2Nd Floor Visakhapatnam Vuda Udyog Bhavan Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aancs4420J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 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…

Vani Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

The appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 83/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

The Chodavaram Co-Operative Sugars Limited, Chodavaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Visakhapatnam

ITA 28/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

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…

M/S Hari Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 59/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…as evidenced from the return of income uploaded on the IT system of the department and reliance on the decision of Jodhpur Benches of the Tribunal, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have held that the scope of section 43B and section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belatedly paid towards such contribut…

K.P. Airtech, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…drawing his attention towards the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. However, the ld CIT(A) has sustained the above adjustment by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Road Transport Corporation - 366 ITR 170. Against the said orders, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the addition by way of adjustment as not permissible while processing the return U/s 143(1)(a) of the IT Act. 8. It was submitted by the ld AR that this ground was not taken before the Ld. CIT (A) due to inadvertent mistake.…

K.P. Airtech, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…drawing his attention towards the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. However, the ld CIT(A) has sustained the above adjustment by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Road Transport Corporation - 366 ITR 170. Against the said orders, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the addition by way of adjustment as not permissible while processing the return U/s 143(1)(a) of the IT Act. 8. It was submitted by the ld AR that this ground was not taken before the Ld. CIT (A) due to inadvertent mistake.…

Sohan Lal Tambi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…ed date of filing return u/s 139(1). The matter was carried in appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who in faceless proceedings sustained the action of the AO relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Road Transport Corporation - 366 ITR 170 and ignoring the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad rendered in the case of Sagan Foundry P Ltd. 7 Sohan Lal Tambi vs. ITO v/s CIT (145 DTR 265). The Hon’ble ITAT, Agra Bench decided this issue in favour of the assessee and relevant findings reads as under: "In the light of the above said discussion, Judgments of SC and HCs…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…he 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 v. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT v. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) 3. The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore. 4. This assessee's appeal is allowed.” We have observed that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court i…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…he 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 v. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT v. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) 3. The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore. 4. This assessee's appeal is allowed.” We have observed that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court i…

U and T Tractor Spares Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 43/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Aug 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Raksha Birla (C.A.) & Shri Mohit Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Kajal Singh (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…ed date of filing return u/s 139(1). The matter was carried in appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who in faceless proceedings sustained the action of the AO relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Road Transport Corporation - 366 ITR 170 and ignoring the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad rendered in the case of Sagan Foundry P Ltd. v/s CIT (145 DTR 265). The Agra Bench decided this issue in favour of the assessee holding that “NFAC is bound by the binding decision of the jurisdictional Allahabad High Court, as the assessing officer is situated within the terr…

Azamgarh Steel & Power Private Limited, New Delhi vs. CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1626/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Azamgarh Steel & Power Vs. Cpc Pvt. Ltd., Banglore 505, Dda Building, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi-110092 Pan No. Aaica 4658 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain Advocate Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Revenue By Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

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

…ed in 321 ITR 508 rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. CIT(A) however, did not agree with the contentions of the assessee. He by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 and other decisions cited in the order, upheld the order of CPC. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us and has raised the following grounds: 3 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the fa…

Arvind Lifesyle Brands Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2236/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. D.R. &
Section 139Section 145Section 145(1)Section 234ASection 271Section 32Section 40

…ed in confirming disallowance of Rs. 15,73,533/- being Employees’ contribution to ESI of Rs. 4,72,060/-. 11. Ld. A.R. fairly conceded that in view of the Jurisdictional High Court order in the matter of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (supra). This ground is against the Assessee. 12. Now we come to next effective ground with regard to disallowance of provision for expenses to the extent of Rs. 13,58,03,489/-. 13. At the outset, Ld. A.R. filed a copy of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case wherein on similar facts and circumstances matter has been decided in favour…

Omkara Impex and Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1762/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 271Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…. 1762 & 1763/Ahd/2018 3 . A.Y. 2014-15 4. So far ground no. 2 & 3 are inter connected, Ld. A.R. fairly conceded that this ground of appeal is against the assesse in view of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 wherein it has been held where assesse deposit Employees’ Contribution of PF and ESI beyond the time allowed under the relevant act. In that case, disallowances can be justified. 5. Now we come to ground no. 4 is concerned, Ld. A.O. notice that assesee has received various payments from Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete India Pvt. Ltd. On enquiry, a…

Mahalaxmi Tex Prints Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 712/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Shika Mantri and Shri Sidharth Mantri, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Esther, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

…ed departmental representative fails to dispute that hon’ble high courts have adopted varying opinions regarding correctness of the impugned claim. Take for instance the case law against the assessee i.e. CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) and in favour of assessee CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. 229 CTR 118 (2010) (Del) Bihar State Warehousing Corpn vs CIT 38 ITR 140 (Pat). It is thus clear that the impugned disallowance issue has been wrongly raised by the Assessing Officer in sec.154 proceedings on a debatable issue as per TS Balram vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). I theref…

Sri Mahalaxmi Tex Prints Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 711/HYD/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Shika Mantri and Shri Sidharth Mantri, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Esther, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

…ed departmental representative fails to dispute that hon’ble high courts have adopted varying opinions regarding correctness of the impugned claim. Take for instance the case law against the assessee i.e. CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) and in favour of assessee CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. 229 CTR 118 (2010) (Del) Bihar State Warehousing Corpn vs CIT 38 ITR 140 (Pat). It is thus clear that the impugned disallowance issue has been wrongly raised by the Assessing Officer in sec.154 proceedings on a debatable issue as per TS Balram vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). I theref…

Unison Insurance Broking Services Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 912/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…uted fact that assessee has paid employees contribution to PF and towards ESIC beyond the period prescribed in the specified act. Therefore following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Guj), we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. I.T.A No. 912/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 3 Unison Insurance Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Ground Nos. 2 to 4 (Disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 4,21,348/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act) 6. During the cour…

Zenitex, Surat vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.147 & 234/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha R. Shokla, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, G-3, Deepanjali Appartment, Sai Bangalore. Krupa Society, No.4-Airport Road, Nani Daman. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bgyps2563M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.150/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Riddhi Siddhi Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, 75-1 & 75-2, Gidc, Pandesara, Bangalore. Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7050C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Chinco Textiles, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, Plot No.104, Road No.7, Gidc Bangalore. Sachin, Surat-394230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefc0028N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.201 & 202/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Plot No.275/2, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-394221. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfs5319N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.224 & 225/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Tirupati Prints, Vs. The Adit, Cpc, S. No.207, Plot No.37 To 40, Bangalore. Bamroli Taluka: Choryasi, Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabft4240J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 36

…of debatable nature then perhaps there was no need to make amendment to section 36(1)(va) by inserting the Explanation referred above w.e.f. 01.04.2021.  Thus, although the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation - 366 ITR 170 provides for disallowance of employees contribution to provident fund if it is not paid on or before the due date prescribed under the PF laws, the said decision cannot be applied for making adjustment in the intimation issued under section 143(1) as debatable issues are outside the purview of such adjustment. ITA.147,234,150,160,201,202,224,225,…