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

Shahi Electricals, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 528/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sairam, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…

Wave Mechancis Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Wave Mechanics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, V-3, V-3, I Main, I Phase, Peenya Cpc, Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aaacw 3621 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhukeshwar Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 7. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

Krishnappa Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Krishnappa Murthy, Vs. Cit, #67, 4Th Cross, 2Nd Main, Hosahalli, Cpc, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan : Armpm 8844 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Priya Balashankar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Balashankar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 7. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

Balmatta Diagnostic & Research Centre Ltd., Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 516/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Mrinalini R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 7. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

Balmatta Diagnostic & Research Centre Ltd., Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 515/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 7. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

…made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…

M/S. Sree Narasimha Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sree Narasimha Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.57, Ground Floor, Vasuki, Cpc, Swasthi Road Cross Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aakcs 0472 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Priya Balashankar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Balashankar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 7. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

C Krishniah Chetty Jewellers Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 747/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Krishniah Chetty Jewellers Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(1), No.36, 1St Floor, Commercial Street, Bengaluru. Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaack 5621 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. R. Krishna, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. C. R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 7. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

Trutech Constructions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1913/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ovident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, a similar question came up for consideration before Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170. Therein Assessee collected Rs. 51,06,02,712/- from its employees towards provident fund contribution but deposited Rs. 21,16,61,582/- with provident fund trust. Thus there was a short fall of Rs. 24,89,41,130/-. This amount of short fall was treated by Assessing Officer as income of Assessee vide Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of A…

Uttam Industrial Engineering Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

ITA 1911/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ovident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, a similar question came up for consideration before Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170. Therein Assessee collected Rs. 51,06,02,712/- from its employees towards provident fund contribution but deposited Rs. 21,16,61,582/- with provident fund trust. Thus there was a short fall of Rs. 24,89,41,130/-. This amount of short fall was treated by Assessing Officer as income of Assessee vide Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of A…

Trutuff Facility Management Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1851/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ovident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, a similar question came up for consideration before Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170. Therein Assessee collected Rs. 51,06,02,712/- from its employees towards provident fund contribution but deposited Rs. 21,16,61,582/- with provident fund trust. Thus there was a short fall of Rs. 24,89,41,130/-. This amount of short fall was treated by Assessing Officer as income of Assessee vide Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of A…

Tech Auto Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1831/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ovident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, a similar question came up for consideration before Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170. Therein Assessee collected Rs. 51,06,02,712/- from its employees towards provident fund contribution but deposited Rs. 21,16,61,582/- with provident fund trust. Thus there was a short fall of Rs. 24,89,41,130/-. This amount of short fall was treated by Assessing Officer as income of Assessee vide Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of A…

Vikas Publishing House Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 1772/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ovident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, a similar question came up for consideration before Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170. Therein Assessee collected Rs. 51,06,02,712/- from its employees towards provident fund contribution but deposited Rs. 21,16,61,582/- with provident fund trust. Thus there was a short fall of Rs. 24,89,41,130/-. This amount of short fall was treated by Assessing Officer as income of Assessee vide Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of A…

Toshiba Water Solutions & Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-27(2), New Delhi

ITA 1754/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ovident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, a similar question came up for consideration before Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170. Therein Assessee collected Rs. 51,06,02,712/- from its employees towards provident fund contribution but deposited Rs. 21,16,61,582/- with provident fund trust. Thus there was a short fall of Rs. 24,89,41,130/-. This amount of short fall was treated by Assessing Officer as income of Assessee vide Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of A…

Hans Rubber & Sports Private Limited, Meerut vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Meerut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 915/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…vered under the amendment to Section 43B of I.T. Act – the Tribunal was right in holding that payments are subject to benefits of Section 43B. 8. We have examined the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) wherein the court has held the the payment were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va).It was held as under: “Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (employee's contribution) - whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it as employee's…

Pushpa Sharma, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1473/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…vered under the amendment to Section 43B of I.T. Act – the Tribunal was right in holding that payments are subject to benefits of Section 43B. 8. We have examined the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) wherein the court has held the the payment were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va).It was held as under: “Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be 5 AY: 2018-19 allowed on actual payment (employee's contribution) - whether where an employer has not credited sum received by i…

Flying Fabrication, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1545/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Flying Fabrication, Vs. Income Tax Officer, The Tax Chambers Advocates Ward-1(4) & Legal Advisors, C-177, Gurgaon Defence Colony, Lgf, New Delhi Pan :Aadff9825H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…vered under the amendment to Section 43B of I.T. Act – the Tribunal was right in holding that payments are subject to benefits of Section 43B. 8. We have examined the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) wherein the court has held the the payment were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va).It was held as under: 5 “Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (employee's contribution) - whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it as employee…

Rama Roller Flour Mills, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1477/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…vered under the amendment to Section 43B of I.T. Act – the Tribunal was right in holding that payments are subject to benefits of Section 43B. 8. We have examined the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) wherein the court has held the the payment were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va).It was held as under: “Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be 5 AY: 2018-19 allowed on actual payment (employee's contribution) - whether where an employer has not credited sum received by i…

Jayesh Parshotamdas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 229/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…essee with all his fairness submitted that the issue involved in this particular matter relates to late payment of PF contribution has already been decided against the assessee by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC, reported in 366 ITR 170. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 6. Having heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC (supra) we f…

Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 400/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: The Tribunal. The Appeal Is Filed Before The Tribunal On 07.07.2020 Whereas The Appeal Ought To Have Been Filed On Or Before 23.06.2020 This Period Falls Under Covid-Pandemic Situation, Thus Following Hon’Ble Supreme Court Judgment Dated 23.3.2020 In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 Of 2020, Vide Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Extended Time Limit For Filing Appeals W.E.F. 15.3.2020. Thus, There Is No Delay In Filing The Above Appeal & We Take The Appeal Of The Assessee For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 43B

…e u/s. 36(1v) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Gandhinagar. The ld. CIT(A) following the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) uphold the addition I.T.A No. 400/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 3 Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation vs. ACIT made by the Assessing Officer and thereby dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is…