How many judgments cite CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation?

1,158 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(3), Section 2(24)(x), Section 250, Section 36(1)(va), Section 1961.

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 250 Section 36(1)(va)Section 1961 Section 40A(7)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

employees contribution to pf section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 2(24)section 43b section 43 section 36 section 36(1)section 139(1)section 139 section 143(1)section 13

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

The DCIT.Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2791/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Smt. Vasundra Upmanyu, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Shri T. P. Hemani, A.R

…ount of late payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESI. 17. This issue is no more res integra as it has been decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the case of GSRTC 366 ITR 170. 18. Respectfully following the same, ground no. 1 is dismissed. 19. Ground no. 2 relates to the part addition confirmed on account of TP adjustment in respect of corporate guarantee. 20. This issue has been considered by us while deciding ground no. 1 of Revenue’s appeal. For our detailed discussion therein, this grievance is allowed.…

M/S. Kalinga Institute of Training for Security & Consultancy Services, Balasore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Balasore

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 436/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd (2013) 35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj). The contrary view is that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) order dated 26.12.2013, wherein, it was held that 43B does not apply to employees contribution and only section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) is applicable. Therefore, employee’s contribution is disallowed if not paid within the due date as per EPF/ESI Act. The said decision was rendered after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supr…

M/S. Kalinga Institute of Training for Security & Consultancy Services, Balasore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Balasore

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 435/CTK/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Powerware India Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 206/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Sainiआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.206/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Powerware India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 6A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp 1607 R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 194ASection 194CSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Emtici Engineering Ltd., Anand vs. The ACIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3349/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Filing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act.”

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 154(2)

…l was called out for hearing, learned counsel for the assessee fairly points out that the issue in appeal is covered against the assessee by the judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj). He submits that, in view of the fact Emtici Engineering Ltd vs. ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 2 of 2 that the issue in question is now conclusively settled against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, the petition under Section 154 was rightly rejected by the learned CIT(A). He, however, points out that the app…

Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Nayagarh vs. JCIT, Ramge-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

ITA 132/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 194ASection 194CSection 194JSection 40

…cision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd (2013) 35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj). The contrary view is that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) order dated 26.12.2013, wherein, it was held that 43B does not apply to employee’s contribution and only section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) is applicable. Therefore, employee’s contribution is disallowed if not paid within the due date as per EPF/ESI Act. The said decision was rendered after considering the decision of Hon’ble…

M/S. Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 2176/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri S. S. Godara)

For Appellant: Shri Anil R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R

…PF of Employees. 3. The issue raised by the Assessee is no more res integra as the same has been considered and decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the judgment in the case of GSRTC 366 ITR 170. 4. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. Order pronounced in Open Court on 17 - 11- 2017 (S. S. GODARA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBERACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 17 /11/2017 Rajesh Copy of the Order forwarded to:- 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent.…

S.A.L. Steel Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1217/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Section 2Section 234Section 234BSection 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…red facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. 4. We find that this issue has been decided against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “Held : Considering section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act as it stands, with respect to any sum received by assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of clause (x) of sub-section (24) of section 2 applies, assessee shall not be entitled to deduction of such amount in computing incom…

Rajratna Metal Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Addl.CIT, Range-5, Now Range-3(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 940/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P. D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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 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 ITO, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Doshion Limited, Ahmedabad

Accordingly. Ground no. 3 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1895/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri D.P. Gupta with Prasoon Kabra Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar with Parin Shah A.R

Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…e Act. 6. This issue is no more res integra as the same has been decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. 3 . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 in the case of GSRTC Ltd. 366 ITR 170. Respectfully following the same, we decide the impugned issue against the assessee. Ground no. 2 is allowed. 7. Ground no. 3 relates to the denial of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act in respect of the following items: (i) Recovery of bad debts written off in earlier years Rs. 15,10,497/- (ii) Excess provision of earlier years written back Rs. 45,…

Yamir Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle - 8, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2482/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee. On appeal, learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by putting reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 265 CTR 64 (366 ITR 170). Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the payment was made within the grace period available under the PF Act. Therefore, it has to be construed as paid within the time limit. The explanation to this effect has been submitted before the learned CIT(A) in the written submission. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the ass…

Emtici Engineering Ltd., Anand vs. The Jt. CIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2761/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

…ppeal order.” Assessment Year : 2011-12 Page 2 of 2 3. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly accepts that the aforesaid issue is now covered, by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgement in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170, against the assessee. 4. In view of the above discussions, the grievance raised by the assessee is clearly devoid of any legally sustainable merits. We, therefore, dismiss the grievance of the assessee and decline to interfere in the matter. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 5. 17th day of August, 20…

Orissa Air Products Pvt. Ltd., Dhenkanal vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 6/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri T.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…5/- under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) order dated 26.12.2013, wherein, it was held that if the assessee has not credited the employee’s contribution to the employees’ account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date mentioned in the Explanation to section 36(1)(va), the assessee shall not be entitled to deduction of such amount in computing the income referred…

Ray Engineering Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2638/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Ray Engineering Ltd. Dy. C.I.T. 15(3)(1) Plot No. 2, Ray Compound Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Vs. Post Iit Market, Powai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400076 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aadcr3859C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashok J. PatilFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 43B

…sue was covered in favour of the Appellant by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. ITXA 399/12 dated 27-06- 2014, but instead relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 03. The Appellant craves leave to add amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal.” 3.2 All these grounds (supra) pertain to the single issue of challenging the order of the learned CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance of `28,70,807/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of delayed payment of contribution to EPF in accordance wit…

Vinyroyal Plasicoates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1240/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos.1240 & 1243/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 बनाम/ M/S. Vinyroyal The Ito 9(3)-3, Plasticoates Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Plot No. 60Cd, Mumbai-400 020 Shlok Bldg., 1St Floor, Govt. Ind. Est, Charkop, Kandivli (W), Mumbai-400 067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv 4165E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Mayur A. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :08.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12 .2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Preferred Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-20, Mumbai Dated 17.12.2012 & 27.12.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. Both These Appeals Have Common Grievance By The Assessee Therefore They Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar

Section 36(1)(iii)

…in the case of CIT Vs Pruthivi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 336. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. 366 ITR 170. 5. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the factual matrix. Undisputedly, the assessee has paid the contributions which have been received from the employees beyond the time limit provided in the Act. However, the same has been claimed to have been deposited 3 ITA. Nos.1240 & 1243/M/13 before filing the return of income. Therefore, this…

Addl. CIT, Bulandshahr vs. M/S. Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh, Uttar Pradesh

In the result we uphold the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs

ITA 5910/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varky, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…visions of Section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) and made disallowances. We are aware that there are at least six high court decision on allowability of such claim such as Honourable Gujarat HC ruling in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 and Honourable Kerala High Court in CIT V Merchem Limited have decided against the assessee holding that employees contribution not deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective P F laws is not allowable, whereas honourable Delhi high court in case of AIMIL Ltd. 319 ITR 306., Honourable Rajasthan HC in State Bank of Bikaner & Jai…

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Telangana vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 214/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…following decision, the courts have held that if the employee’s contribution is deposited by the employer to PFI ESI account within the due date of filing return of income then deduction is allowable. - CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) (366 ITR 170) (Raja HC) - CIT .vs. State Bank of Beaker & Japer (2014) (363 ITR 70) (Raja HC) - CIT vs. Japer Idiot Veteran Enigma Ltd. (2014) (363 ITR 70) (Raja HC) - CIT vs. Rajasthan Raja Idiot Utahan Enigma Ltd. (2014) (363 ITR 307) - CIT vs. Animal Ltd. & Ors. (2010) 229 CTR 418 (Del HC) - CIT vs. Vine Cement Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR (St) 1 - CIT vs. Kasha Su…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Agila Specialties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 179/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C