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 367,154 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

The Dy. CIT., Circle-3, Ahmedabad vs. Khandwala Integrated Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 932/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…to PF and ESI at Rs.1,05,190/-, Rs.1,32,396/-, Rs.26,323/-, Rs.18,497/- and Rs.10,785/- respectively. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). Assessee has challenged the disallowance for all the five assessment years before us. 9. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the common issue relating to disallowance u/s 43B for delay in depositing employee’s provident fund is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional Hig…

Kifs Securities Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Range- 3, Ahmedabad

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 643/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…to PF and ESI at Rs.1,05,190/-, Rs.1,32,396/-, Rs.26,323/-, Rs.18,497/- and Rs.10,785/- respectively. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). Assessee has challenged the disallowance for all the five assessment years before us. 9. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the common issue relating to disallowance u/s 43B for delay in depositing employee’s provident fund is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional Hig…

The ACIT, Circle-3, Ahmedabad vs. Kifs Securities Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 2882/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…to PF and ESI at Rs.1,05,190/-, Rs.1,32,396/-, Rs.26,323/-, Rs.18,497/- and Rs.10,785/- respectively. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). Assessee has challenged the disallowance for all the five assessment years before us. 9. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the common issue relating to disallowance u/s 43B for delay in depositing employee’s provident fund is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional Hig…

Kifs Securities Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Range- 3, Ahmedabad

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 2717/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…to PF and ESI at Rs.1,05,190/-, Rs.1,32,396/-, Rs.26,323/-, Rs.18,497/- and Rs.10,785/- respectively. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). Assessee has challenged the disallowance for all the five assessment years before us. 9. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the common issue relating to disallowance u/s 43B for delay in depositing employee’s provident fund is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional Hig…

Selva Gold Covering Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 693/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 11.11.2019
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

…hile many judicial decisions have rendered favourable verdict on the issue, the learned C.I.T.(Appeals) is not justified in relying on the unfavourable decision rendered by the Gujarath High Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs Gujarath State Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) and Kerala High Court's decision in the case of C.l.T.Vs Merchem Ltd. (378 ITR 443) alone to confirm the addition. 5. The learned C.l.T.(Appeals) is not justified in relying on the Board's Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015/ He failed to note that the Board's Circular is contrary to the principles of law established. 6. The learned C.l.T.(Ap…

Parikh Packaging Pvt Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 2778/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Parikh Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Ito बनाम/ Opp. Rotomac Pens, Sarkhej Wd-3(1)(2) Vs. 4Th Floor, B-402, Pratyaksh Bawla Highway, Village Moraiya, Tal Sanand, Kar Bhavan, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aab Cp7 894 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Talera, Ar Shri L. P. Jain, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 25/10/2019 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 18/11/2019 Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Mahavir Prasad - Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-9/10555/Ito Wd-3(1)(2)/16-17 Dated 11.09.2017 Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 29.02.2016 & Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Talera, AR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e gone through the relevant record and the impugned order at the time of hearing Ld. Counsel on behalf of the assessee 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.):- “Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (Employees contribution) - Whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it as employees' contribution to employees' account in relevant fund on or before due date as prescribed i…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Adani Wilmar Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, cross objection filed by assessee in CO No

ITA 1696/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 1696/Ahd/2017

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sumeet Kumar Verma
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 1696/Ahd/2017 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No. 51/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) DCIT Adani Wilmar Ltd. बनाम/ Circle 1(1)(1), Fortune House, Nr. Adani Vs. ‘A’ Wing, Room No. 309, House, Mithakhali Cross 3rd Floor, Pratyaksh Kar Roads, Navrangpura, Bhavan, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380014 Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCA8056G (Appellant / Respondent)…

Garware Synthetics Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT - 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6139/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 68

…ecision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC) and the facts in Apex Court decision were distinguished by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. GP Road Transport Corporation Ltd. in ITA No.637 of 2013, 366 ITR 170 (Guj). 10. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that in this case the assessee has remitted the dues on account of PF and ESI to the Government of Exchequer after the due date as per the proviso to section 36(1)(va) but before the due date of filing the return. In our opinion, the case of the assessee is…

M/S. Akash Fashion Prints Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 255/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 255/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बनाम/ M/S. Akash Fashion Prints The Ito, Pvt. Ltd. 238 Saijpur Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. Gopalpur, Shahwadi Ahmedabad-380015 Octrionaka, Narol Ahmedabad-382405 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabca8319C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondent By: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07/10/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of 24/10/2019 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36

…case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. 6. Ld. representatives fairly agreed that the issue is covered in favour of the revenue by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj). The ld. counsel has also brought to our notice that identical issue on similar facts has been adjudicated in the case of the assessee itself by the Co- ordinate Bench of the ITAT vide ITA No. 516 and 517/Ahd/2017 on1st July, 2019 in favor of the revenue. We therefore approve the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere…

Goyal & Co. (Const.) Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle-2(1) (1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1758/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri V.R. Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36

…oth the parties and perused the materials available on record. The delay in deposit made to the employees Provident fund and ESIC is not eligible for deduction by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT versus GSRTC reported in 366 ITR 170 wherein it was held as under: “In view of the above and considering section 36(1)(va), read with sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2, it is to be held that with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies, the assessee shall be entitled to…

Goyal & Co. (Const.) Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle-2(1) (1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1757/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri V.R. Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36

…oth the parties and perused the materials available on record. The delay in deposit made to the employees Provident fund and ESIC is not eligible for deduction by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT versus GSRTC reported in 366 ITR 170 wherein it was held as under: “In view of the above and considering section 36(1)(va), read with sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2, it is to be held that with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies, the assessee shall be entitled to…

Agew Steel Manufactauturers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1898/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. No: 1898/AHD/2017 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Agew Steel Manufacturers V/S The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. 506, Aniket Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad Building, Nr. Municipal Market, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380009 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCA6055D Appellant by : Shri Karan Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 09 -10-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 10 -10-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appea…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Emmar Logistics Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 463/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Kameswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 2(24)(x)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…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Emmar Logistics Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 462/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Kameswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 2(24)(x)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…

Dholu Construction & Projects Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3144/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 801ASection 801A(4)

…yees Contribution for Provident fund has been paid beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. An amount of Rs. 33,375/- paid towards Provident Fund from the Employees Contribution on 30.04.2014 wherein due date was 15.04.2014. In view of the GSRTC 366 ITR 170 (supra) wherein it is held as under: "Section 438, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (Employees contribution) - Whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it as employees' contribution to employees' account in relevant fund on or be…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. G. Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 509/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-4(1), Vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam D.No. 49-54/16/4/1/13, Kalyan Residence, B.S. Layout, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aapcs 7844 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Kameswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 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 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Krishna Engineering & Constructions Company, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 474/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-3(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Krishna Engineering Visakhapatnam. & Construction Co., Flat No. 9, Kalyani, Sector-2, Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aapfs 8945 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)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…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nem Engineering Projects Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 458/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-3(1), Vs. M/S. Nem Engineering Visakhapatnam. Projects Private Ltd., D.No. 55-15-6, Housing Board Colony, Krishna College Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaccn 6245 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…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 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Dasari Kasi Viswanadham, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 412/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-5(1), Vs. Dasari Kasiviswanadham, Visakhapatnam. Prop. United Surgicals, Sagar Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Afbpd 9254 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)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…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Yona Smelters Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 411/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-5(1), Vs. M/S. Yona Smelters Pvt. Visakhapatnam. Ltd., D.No. 49-36-20, Flat No.B1, Nikhils Residency, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaacy 3608 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…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…