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 366,470 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

Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

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

ITA 1019/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1019/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ A/2/236, Gidc, Nandesari, Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Baroda – 391 340. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 9406 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 04/10/2018
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(2)

…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…

Gateway Technolabs Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 677/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2018AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

…nate bench have observed as follows :- “3. Learned representatives fairly agree that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered against the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.), wherein it is categorically held that in Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 3 of 4 the case of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF, the same will not be deductable in computing income under section 28 of the Act. The law so laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. The mere fact that an appeal against th…

Karpara Project Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2223/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2223/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13

Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…section 2 (24) (x) of the Act. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT (A) has confirmed the disallowance following the judgement of Hon`ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj) : 223 Taxman 398 : [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (2014) (1) TML 502 -Guj-HC. The appeal filed by GSRTC is presently pending for adjudication before the Hon`ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the recent decision of Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverage Corporation L…

Nilkanth Specific Family Trust, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Mehsana

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2414/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234D

…tion of total income at Rs.16,39,721/-” 9. Learned representatives fairly agree that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered against the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.), wherein it is categorically held that in the case of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF/ESI, the same will not be deductable in computing income under section 28 of the Act. The law so laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. The ITA Nos.589/Ahd/2015 & 2414/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 20…

Nilkanth Specific Family Trust, Mehsana vs. The Jt. CIT, Mehsana Range, Mehsana

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 589/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234D

…tion of total income at Rs.16,39,721/-” 9. Learned representatives fairly agree that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered against the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.), wherein it is categorically held that in the case of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF/ESI, the same will not be deductable in computing income under section 28 of the Act. The law so laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. The ITA Nos.589/Ahd/2015 & 2414/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 20…

Mjb India Industrial Repairs Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 876/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mjb India Industrial Repairs Pvt Ltd ......…………......Appellant 22, Dhara Centre, Vijay Char Rasta, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380 009 [Pan : Aaecm 5416 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......................Respondent Ward 2 (1)(4), Ahmedabad

Section 143(3)

…e being addition of Rs.1,27,110/- be decided accordingly.” 8. Learned representatives fairly agree that the issue is covered against the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). Learned counsel for the assessee nevertheless relies upon Hon’ble Karnataka High Court judgment, as referred to in the ground of appeal above, and the fact that the SLP on this issue is admitted by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9, Respectfully following the views of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport C…

Sai Flipped Coils Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1) (Old: Dy.CIT, Circle-8), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 396/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 395 To 396/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12) Sai Flipped Coils Ltd., Ito, बनाम/ 75/B, Santej Vadsar Road, Ward – (4)(1)(1), Vs. Santej, Ahmedabad. Gandhinagar – 382 721 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 0475 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani & Parimal Parmar, अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…has not deposited the employee’s contribution to PF of Rs.16,002/- within the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. The AO, after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 disallowed the ITA Nos.395 & 396/Ahd/2016 Sai Flipped Coils Ltd. vs. ITO A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 claim and added the same to the total income of the assessee. In the first appeal before the ld.CIT(A), disallowance was confirmed. Hence the assessee is further before the Tribunal on this issue. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the materials ava…

Sai Flipped Coils Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1) (Old: Dy.CIT, Circle-8), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 395/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 395 To 396/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12) Sai Flipped Coils Ltd., Ito, बनाम/ 75/B, Santej Vadsar Road, Ward – (4)(1)(1), Vs. Santej, Ahmedabad. Gandhinagar – 382 721 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 0475 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani & Parimal Parmar, अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…has not deposited the employee’s contribution to PF of Rs.16,002/- within the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. The AO, after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 disallowed the ITA Nos.395 & 396/Ahd/2016 Sai Flipped Coils Ltd. vs. ITO A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 claim and added the same to the total income of the assessee. In the first appeal before the ld.CIT(A), disallowance was confirmed. Hence the assessee is further before the Tribunal on this issue. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the materials ava…

Mitali Creation Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Now Ward-1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2121/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am

Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…the relevant statutes. 3. The learned Authorized Representative (the ld. A.R.) submitted the CIT (A) has confirmed the disallowance following the judgement of Hon`ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj) : 223 Taxman Mitali Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO1(1)(3)Surat /I.T.A. No.2121 /Ahd/2015/A.Y.12-13 Page 2 of 6 398 : [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (2014) (1) TML 502 -Guj-HC. The appeal filed by GSRTC is presently pending for adjudication before the Hon`ble Supreme Court. The ld. AR has relied on the recent decision of Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Country Condo'S Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 118/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Vs. Country Condo’S Limited, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcn3348N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. N. Swapna, Dr Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ar Assessee By : Date Of Hearing 17.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2018

For Appellant: Date of hearingFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 43B

…e of filing of the return the same should be allowed as deduction, in view of various case laws relied upon before the CIT(A). 4. On the other hand Ld. DR placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd., [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) in support of her contentions that the contributions since paid beyond the due date as prescribed in the respective Acts they are not allowable as deduction u/s 43B of the IT Act. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. In this case the disall…

Mehta Cad Cam Syatems Pvt Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 418/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 418/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mehta Cad Cam System Pvt. Acit, बनाम/ Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(2), Vs. 4-5, Second Floor, Sumel Ahmedabad. Complex, Opp: Gnfc Info Tower, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm 4397 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri T. P. Hemani, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R
Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)

…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 Mehta CAD CAM System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Asst.Year – 2013-14 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 contribut…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Srinagar vs. M/S. J&K Project Construction, Srinagar

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 176/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Jammu and Kashmir Projects Vs. Assessing Officer Construction Corporation Ltd. Ward 1, Srinagar [PAN: AABCJ 2455N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 175 & 176/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. J&K Project Construction Income Tax, Circle-3, Srinagar Corporation Ltd., Haft Chinar, Srinagar [PAN: AABCJ 2455N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : S…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Srinagar vs. M/S. J&K Project Construction, Srinagar

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 175/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Jammu and Kashmir Projects Vs. Assessing Officer Construction Corporation Ltd. Ward 1, Srinagar [PAN: AABCJ 2455N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 175 & 176/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. J&K Project Construction Income Tax, Circle-3, Srinagar Corporation Ltd., Haft Chinar, Srinagar [PAN: AABCJ 2455N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : S…

M/S. Jammu & Kashmir Projects Construction, Jammu vs. The Assessing Officer, Srinagar

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 101/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Jammu and Kashmir Projects Vs. Assessing Officer Construction Corporation Ltd. Ward 1, Srinagar [PAN: AABCJ 2455N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 175 & 176/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. J&K Project Construction Income Tax, Circle-3, Srinagar Corporation Ltd., Haft Chinar, Srinagar [PAN: AABCJ 2455N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : S…

M/S. Jammu & Kashmir Projects Construction, Jammu & Kashmir vs. The Assessing Officer, Srinagar

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 100/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Jammu and Kashmir Projects Vs. Assessing Officer Construction Corporation Ltd. Ward 1, Srinagar [PAN: AABCJ 2455N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 175 & 176/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. J&K Project Construction Income Tax, Circle-3, Srinagar Corporation Ltd., Haft Chinar, Srinagar [PAN: AABCJ 2455N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : S…

Rishabh Software Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 848/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jul 2018AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

…the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee; however, we find that the issue in question is squarely covered against the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.), wherein it is categorically held that in the case of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF, the same will not be deductable in computing income under section 28 of the Act. The law so laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. The mere fact that an appeal against the said decision is pending before the…

Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-(3)(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 117/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 117 & 321/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R

…eal before the Tribunal. 6. We have examined the issue towards allowability of PF & ESIC under s.36(1)(va) of the Act. We notice at the outset that the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Guj) is against the assessee on the first principles. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court considered the question with respect to the disallowance of amount being employees’ contribution to PF account/ESIC contribution, which admittedly, the assessee in that case did not deposit with the PF department/ ESIC department on ITA Nos. 117 & 321/Ahd/18 [Ro…

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 765/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2018AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

…t of Employees’ Contribution to PF/ESI. 3. Learned representatives fairly agree that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered against the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.), wherein it is categorically held that in the case of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF, the same will not be deductable in computing income under section 28 of the Act. The law so laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. The mere fact that an appeal against the said decision is pending before the…

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 764/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2018AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

…t of Employees’ Contribution to PF/ESI. 3. Learned representatives fairly agree that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered against the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.), wherein it is categorically held that in the case of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF, the same will not be deductable in computing income under section 28 of the Act. The law so laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. The mere fact that an appeal against the said decision is pending before the…

M/S Ask Me Lab Con Services Pvt Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2183/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2018AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

…the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee; however, we find that the issue in question is squarely covered against the assessee by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.), wherein it is categorically held that in the case of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF, the same will not be deductable in computing income under section 28 of the Act. The law so laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. The mere fact that an appeal against the said decision is pending before the…