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

Rmp Bearings Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2677/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.2677/Ahd/2017 &"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.R
Section 143Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 38

…n or before the due date. A Showcause notice was issued. The assessee also furnished its reply. However, relying on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) the Ld.AO disallowed the claim of the assessee and added Rs.41,51,538/- to the total income of the assessee which was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 3. At the time of hearing of instant appeal the Ld.Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue involved in this pa…

Hindustan Apparel Industries, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 215/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.214 & 215/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बिाम/ Hindustan Apparel Acit 21(3), Industries, Piramal Chambers, Unit No. 4, Lower Parel, Mumbai V. Bradys Glady Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400025 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaafh0455J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. Biyani Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 214 & 215/Mum/2018, Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 23.10.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-33/Rg.21/260/2016-17 & 846/2016- 17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Assessment Order(S) Dated 03.03.2016 & 28.12.2016 Respectively Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) Both U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

…sion of Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited(supra) taking a different view on this issue in favour of Revenue. We have also noted that Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170(Guj.) while adjudicating this issue has held in favour of Revenue . Similar was the view of Hon‟ble Madras High Court on this issue in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Private Limited v. DCIT reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.), wherein the issue was decided in favour of Revenue . We are bound to follow judgment of Hon‟ble Jurisdic…

Hindustan Apparel Industries, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 214/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.214 & 215/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बिाम/ Hindustan Apparel Acit 21(3), Industries, Piramal Chambers, Unit No. 4, Lower Parel, Mumbai V. Bradys Glady Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400025 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaafh0455J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. Biyani Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 214 & 215/Mum/2018, Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 23.10.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-33/Rg.21/260/2016-17 & 846/2016- 17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Assessment Order(S) Dated 03.03.2016 & 28.12.2016 Respectively Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) Both U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

…sion of Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited(supra) taking a different view on this issue in favour of Revenue. We have also noted that Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170(Guj.) while adjudicating this issue has held in favour of Revenue . Similar was the view of Hon‟ble Madras High Court on this issue in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Private Limited v. DCIT reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.), wherein the issue was decided in favour of Revenue . We are bound to follow judgment of Hon‟ble Jurisdic…

Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., Porbandar vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 37

…e other hand the Ld. AR before us conceded the fact that the assessee is not eligible for deduction on account of employee’s contribution towards the provident fund in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. GSRTC reported in 366 ITR 170. However, the Ld. AR further submitted that the employee’s contribution which has been paid within the grace period should be allowed as deduction. 18. The Ld.AR further submitted that the employer contribution towards the provident fund was paid before the filing of income tax return. Therefore there was no contravention to the provisions of se…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Jamnagar vs. M/S Hiravati Marine Products (P) Ltd., Porbandar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/RJT/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 37

…e other hand the Ld. AR before us conceded the fact that the assessee is not eligible for deduction on account of employee’s contribution towards the provident fund in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. GSRTC reported in 366 ITR 170. However, the Ld. AR further submitted that the employee’s contribution which has been paid within the grace period should be allowed as deduction. 18. The Ld.AR further submitted that the employer contribution towards the provident fund was paid before the filing of income tax return. Therefore there was no contravention to the provisions of se…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Zaveri & Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 864/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 1O

…629/- in respect of employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC.” 7. Learned Representatives fairly agree that this issue is covered against the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgement in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). We, therefore, confirm the action of the learned CIT(A) on this point as well, and decline to interfere in the matter. 8. Ground no.4 is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 10. We now take up the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer. 11. In ground nos.1 and 4, which we will take up together, the Assessin…

M/S. Zaveri & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 630/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 1O

…629/- in respect of employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC.” 7. Learned Representatives fairly agree that this issue is covered against the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgement in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). We, therefore, confirm the action of the learned CIT(A) on this point as well, and decline to interfere in the matter. 8. Ground no.4 is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 10. We now take up the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer. 11. In ground nos.1 and 4, which we will take up together, the Assessin…

Bhumishree Consultancy & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…t year 2011-12 and 2012-13 order dated 28.12.2017. 6. Replying to above, ld D.R. strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj). 7. On a careful consideration of above submission of both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that there are contrary decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts on this issue. However, the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan Beverage Corporation Ltd holds good as the SLP filed by P a g e 2 | 4 the de…

Sagar Yeswantrai Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2)., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1684/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1684/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Sagar Yeswantrai Mehta The Acit बनाम/ Laxmi House Circle-2(1)(2) Vs. Swagat Cross Road Ahmedabad Hotel Rock Regency C.G. Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpm 8669 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.S.A. Khan, CIT-DR
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…e, he disallowed the claim of the assessee with the help of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the Act. 8. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance following the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). Since the ld.first appellate authority has based his order on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and Hon’ble High Court has held that if an assessee failed to pay employees’ contribution to PF and ESI account within the due date provided under those Acts, then assessee will not be entitled for deduction of such expenditure. The Ld…

M/S. Institute of Gastro & Kidney Care Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 367/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.367/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-2016) M/S Institute Of Gastro & Kidney Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle- Care (P) Ltd., 1(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.155, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007, Odisha "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacci 9709 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 04.06.2018 In First Appeal No.0107/17-18, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Sole Issue In This Appeal Agitated By The Assessee Is That The Claim Of Contribution Towards Epf & Esi Of Rs.3,21,916/- Should Be Allowed To The Assessee As The Same Was Paid & Deposited Within The Same Financial Year & Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return. 3. I Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Sides & Clearly Perused The Relevant Material Placed On The Record Of The Tribunal. 4. Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ao & Ld. Cit(A) Have Followed The Decision Of Hon’Ble Gujarat High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Gujarat

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…clearly perused the relevant material placed on the record of the Tribunal. 4. Ld. AR submitted that the AO and ld. CIT(A) have followed the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat 2 State Road Transport Corporation, reported as 366 ITR 170 (Guj), whereas the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd., reported in (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 173(Rajasthan) mandates that the amount claimed on account of payment of EPF and ESI having been deposited on or before the due date of filing of return of income should be allowed…

The Puri District Co-Operative Milk Producer'S Union Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.342/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-2015) The Puri District Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Milk Producer’S Union Limited, Bhubaneswar Chintamaniswar, Kalpana Area, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat 8507 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Das(Written Submission) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 05.06.2018 In First Appeal No.0076/17-18, For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(Appeals-1), Bhubaneswar Is Capricious, Invalid, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. That The Disallowance Of Employees Contribution To Pf To The Extent Of Rs.15,15,620/-, On The Ground Of Non-Deposit Within The Stipulated Time Period Is Arbitrary, Wrong & Non Based On The Available Facts. 3 The Appellant Craves Leaves To Amend, Modify, Oblige, Add To Or Resigned Any Or All Of The Above Ground. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Operating Under Omfed In Puri District, Engaged In Procurement & 2 Processing Of Milk & Milk Products. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Das(Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e. 7. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of authorities below and submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, reported as 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal of assessee. 8. I have heard the arguments of ld. DR and gone through the written submission filed by the ld. AR of the assessee and perused the relevant material placed on record of the Tribunal. I find that the assessee has deposited the EPF amount of Rs.15,15,619/- before due date of filing of 3 t…

Unicure Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2599/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Nirmit Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 145

…he disallowance of Employees Provident Fund of Rs. 2,23,110/- u/s. 36(1)(va). 14. This issue is already against the appellant for late deposit of Employees Provident Fund with the authority by the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of GSRTC 366 ITR 170 wherein it is held: "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…

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 933/AHD/2016[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 146Section 2(24)(x)Section 40A(9)Section 43B

…hin the previous year itself though with a delay could not be taxed u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(VA) of the Act by following decision of Hon Gujarat High Court in case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION reported at (2014) 366 ITR 170. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has filed its return of income on 31/12/1999 declaring income from house property at Rs.9,036/-, income ITA Nos. 933 & 1313/Ahd/2016 3 . A.Y. 1999-2000 from other sources at Rs.12,35,176/- and business loss of Rs.30,43,96,755/-. In the order passed u/s.143(3), several additions/disallowance…

Multivision Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2620/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of Employees Provident Fund of Rs. 2,23,110/- u/s. 36(1)(va). 2 . A.Y. 2013-14 2. This issue is already against the appellant for late deposit of Employees Provident Fund with the authority by the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of GSRTC 366 ITR 170 wherein it is held: "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 p…

S. G. Vat Care Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1943/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1943/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 S.G. Vat Care P.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4 1, Second Floor Sabarkantha. J.P. Commercial Centre Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar Pan : Aatcs 0725 N.

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

…this Act, hence, its claim for deduction was disallowed under sect6ion 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed disallowance by putting reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., 366 ITR 170. Considering reliance put forth by the ld.CIT(A) on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we are of the view that no interference is called in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue. This ground of appeal is rejected. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 15th January, 2019 at…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -5(1), Visakhapatnam vs. United Freight Carriers Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 484/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-5(1), Vs. M/S. United Freight Carriers Visakhapatnam. Pvt. Ltd., Flat No. 205, Vinayaka Residency, Near Srinagar Bus Stop, Srinagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaacu 4498 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Appala Raju – 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…

M/S. Unique Mercantile India Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1733/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Unique Mercantile India P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) F/7, Vishal Complex Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Dinesh Hall, Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 013. Pan : Aaacu 1981 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ranjan Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Kumar Singh
Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)

…n to provident fund account. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that though the issue deserves to be decided against the assessee, because Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn Ltd. Vs. CIT, 366 ITR 170 has held that if employees’ contribution is not deposited within the time limit provided in PF and ESI Act, then deduction would be disallowed to the assessee. However, he contended that recently Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has observed that judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. Ltd. (supra) and…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and CO of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 525/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smtmadhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Ahd/2015 & Cross Appeal No.49/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10) Dcit, Schutz Dishman Biotech बनाम/ Circle – 4(1)(1), Ltd., Vs. Ahmedabad. Bhadraraj Chambers, Nr. Swastik Cross Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccs 0988 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)/Cross Objector अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr. D.R. Shri T.P. Hemani , A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 29/10/2018
Section 10BSection 69

…f Rs.3,85,810/- u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24) of the Act on account late payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI in question. There is no dispute that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) upholds such a disallowance in principle. The assessee's case however is that relevant due date has to be seen not from the relevant month of salary but the one pertaining to its payment. He then files a computation chart indicating it to have paid above employees' PF/ESI contributions on 22.05.2009 and 28.05.2009 as against the due dates t…

M/S. Schutz Dishman Biotech Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1947/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)(va)Section 41

…f Rs.3,85,810/- u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24) of the Act on account late payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI in question. There is no dispute that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) upholds such a disallowance in principle. The assessee's case however is that relevant due date has to be seen not from the relevant month of salary but the one pertaining to its payment. He then files a computation chart indicating it to have paid above employees' PF/ESI contributions on 22.05.2009 and 28.05.2009 as against the due dates t…

The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1909/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)(va)Section 41

…f Rs.3,85,810/- u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24) of the Act on account late payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI in question. There is no dispute that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) upholds such a disallowance in principle. The assessee's case however is that relevant due date has to be seen not from the relevant month of salary but the one pertaining to its payment. He then files a computation chart indicating it to have paid above employees' PF/ESI contributions on 22.05.2009 and 28.05.2009 as against the due dates t…