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

Torrent Pharmaceutical Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 375/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…bed under the respective Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “6.1 I find that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. GSRTC [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Gujarat), this case Hon'ble High Court have comprehensively dealt with the issue. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as below: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Keeping in view the provisions of…

Saloni Engineering Works, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8, Vapi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 238/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.237/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Vyashkumar Indralal Mishra Income Tax Officer, Dilu Falia, House Of Shri Ward-9, Nr. Vaishali Char Rasta, Nh- Vs. R.C.Patel, Vaghdhara Road, 8, Gidc, Vapi-396195 Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa-396230 (Ut) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amlpm 3623 N (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lokesh Khadaria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shaurya Shaswat Shukla– Sr.DR
Section 143(1)

…allowance thereupon became the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the ground, relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited, reported in 366 ITR 170 [Gujarat]. Counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the issue on hands is squarely covered by this Court in the case of CIT v. GSRTC [Supra]. He, however, submitted that the appeal is pending against the judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court and SLP has been granted. The amount involved is not very large and it would be extrem…

Vyashkumar Indralal Mishra, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7, Vapi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 237/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.237/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Vyashkumar Indralal Mishra Income Tax Officer, Dilu Falia, House Of Shri Ward-9, Nr. Vaishali Char Rasta, Nh- Vs. R.C.Patel, Vaghdhara Road, 8, Gidc, Vapi-396195 Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa-396230 (Ut) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amlpm 3623 N (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lokesh Khadaria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shaurya Shaswat Shukla– Sr.DR
Section 143(1)

…allowance thereupon became the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the ground, relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited, reported in 366 ITR 170 [Gujarat]. Counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the issue on hands is squarely covered by this Court in the case of CIT v. GSRTC [Supra]. He, however, submitted that the appeal is pending against the judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court and SLP has been granted. The amount involved is not very large and it would be extrem…

Faridabad Service Station, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-30(4), Delhi

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

ITA 1472/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

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: “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…

J.P. Motor Rpivate Limited, Lucknow vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 118/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 J.P. Motor Pvt. Ltd. V. The Acit 313/22, Khun Khun Ji Road Range 1 Chowk, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcj6763H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 07 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 J.P. Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. The ACIT 313/22, Khun Khun Ji Road Range 1 Chowk, Lucknow Lucknow TAN/PAN:AABCJ6763H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 21 07 2022 Date of pronouncement: 25 07 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 1.10.2021, for Assessment Year 2018-19, raising…

Optech Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2128/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Optech Engineering Pvt. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Ltd., Cpc, D 151, Amar Gian, Post Bag No.2, Vs. Opp New St Stand, Electronic City Post Office, Khopat, Bangalore – 560 500 Thane- 400 601 Pan: Aaaco7459C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dinesh Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25 . 07 . 2022 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Singh, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s in favour of Revenue: 6 M/s. Optech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.). The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon’ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants…

M/S. L K Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 409/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Suresh Rao, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(1)

…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…

Hari Prakash, Gurugram vs. Itio Ward 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2361/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri J.S. Kochar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…cision of Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand in CIT vs. Kichna Sugar Co. Ltd. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 54 (Uttrakhand) and number of other decisions. However, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) and CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the impugned disallowance which brought the assessee before us. 8. We agree with the submission of the assesee that various Benches of Delhi Tribunal have taken a view on the issue which favours the assessee. We find that recently identical issue came up for consider…

Adani Capital Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 465/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal. Total Tax Effect (Including Surcharge & Cess) Rs. 2,81,229/-”

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…wance cannot be made. 5.4 On careful consideration of observation of Assessing Officer and contention of appellant, I observe that entire issue is covered against appellant by decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in case of State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) wherein it is 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 (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…

Addl . CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Gaursons Realty Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2662/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…deduction for payments of such sums on or before the due date of filling of Income Tax Return. (vi) There are several judicial pronouncements dealing on this issue. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Gujarat)(2014) has dealt with the issue and has analysed the provisions in detail. (vii) CBDT circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 has further clarified about the deletion of second proviso and amendment of first proviso to section 43B are applicable in the case of employer's contribution to PF and ESI and payments made before due date of filin…

M/S Amalgamations Repco Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 559/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R,Vijayaraghvan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s High Courts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon'ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants…

M/S. Canadian International School Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 519/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 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. Goodwill Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 497/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2019-20
For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 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.). In holding so, 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…

Lmg Consulting Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Splash Fashions India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 449/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Lmg Consulting Services India Pvt. Ltd., [Formerly Known As Splash Fashions India The Assistant Pvt. Ltd.], Director Of 4Th Floor, Building No. 3, Income Tax, 77 Town Centre, Cpc, Off Hal Airport Road, Vs. Bangalore. Yemlur, Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aarcs5369N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2022 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Disallowance Towards Delayed Remittance Of Employees' Contribution To Provident Fund ["Pf"] Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Act

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 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.). In holding so, 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…

Radheshyam Upadhyay, Surat vs. ITO Ward, 1 (2) (6), Surat

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 144/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 154Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…e have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court 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, wherein it was held that section 43B does not apply to employees contribution. Only section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) is applicable and therefore, employees contribution is disallowed if not paid within due dates prescribed under relevant Provident Fund /ESI…

Radheshyam Upadhyay, Surat vs. ITO Ward, 1 (2) (6), Surat

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 143/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 154Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…e have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court 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, wherein it was held that section 43B does not apply to employees contribution. Only section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) is applicable and therefore, employees contribution is disallowed if not paid within due dates prescribed under relevant Provident Fund /ESI…

Bhuvaneshsing L. Dalawat, Surat vs. ITO Ward.1(2) (1), Surat

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 142/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 154Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…e have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court 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, wherein it was held that section 43B does not apply to employees contribution. Only section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) is applicable and therefore, employees contribution is disallowed if not paid within due dates prescribed under relevant Provident Fund /ESI…

Bhuvaneshsingh L. Dalawat, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD. 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 138/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 154Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…e have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court 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, wherein it was held that section 43B does not apply to employees contribution. Only section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) is applicable and therefore, employees contribution is disallowed if not paid within due dates prescribed under relevant Provident Fund /ESI…

Datacorp Traffic Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 502/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Veena V.H., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., , Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 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…

Datacorp Traffic Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 501/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Veena V.H., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., , Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 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…