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 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 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

M/S. Khoday India Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 408/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

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

…eturn 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 ITA Nos.407 & 408/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 8 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. Khoday India Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

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

Lsi India Research & Development Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Mahim Goud, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 139Section 139(1)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:- Page 3 of 6 "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 w…

Rapid Global Business |Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Rapid Global Business Solutions India Vs. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Cpc, 18/7, 1St Floor, Narayan Business Bengaluru. Chambers, Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aaccr 5018 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Joseph Varghese, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(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). 6. 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…

Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 485/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 484/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Adani Enterprises Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2035/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, C.I.T.DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35Section 92C

…t we note that the learned counsel for the assessee before us submitted that the impugned issue has been covered against the assessee by the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj). Therefore, respectfully following the order of the jurisdictional High court the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 101. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the part addition of Rs. 7,89,540/- made on account of disallowances of claim under section 35-D of the Act.…

United Shippers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7801/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhunited Shippers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Prospect Income Tax-3(3) Chambers, D.N. Road, Air India Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0764C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Aakash Marthak &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 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.). ITA No.7801/Mum/2019 A.Y.2016-17 6 United Shippers Limited Vs. DCIT-3(3) 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 dist…

Wm Global Sourcing India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 450/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 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…

Adani Murmugao Port Terminal Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 497/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 497/Ahd/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adani Murmugao Port Terminal Vs. ITO Pvt. Ltd. “Adani House”, Nr. Ward-1(1)(1), Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 [PAN No.AAICA0206H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Biren Shah, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 13.07.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed agai…

Adani International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 496/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 496/Ahd/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adani International Container Vs. ACIT Terminal Pvt. Ltd. “Adani House”, Circle-1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 [PAN No.AAJCA5406A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Biren Shah, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 13.07.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is…

Chanasma Haluka Sarvodaya Majur Kamdar Sahkari Mandali Ltd, Mehsana vs. The DCIT CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 261/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…the assessee. 6. Ld. DR submitted that the issue contested by the assessee in the present appeal appears to be covered against the assessee by the judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 7. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused all the relevant material available on record. It appears that the issue contested by the assessee is covered against the assessee by the judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) wherein the Hon’ble High Court Assessment…

P. Rajesh Ship Breaking Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1980/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhp. Rajesh Ship Breaking Vs. Acit, Circle 4(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., 61/2 Lakri Aayakar Bhavan, Bunder, Rey Road, M.K. Road, Darukhana, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacp7197G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: C.V. JainFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 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…

Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 356/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 355/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Ravindra Nath Sahni, New Delhi vs. ACIT CPC, New Delhi

ITA 1784/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1784/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ravindra Nath Saini, Vs Acit, 51, Pashim Marg, Vsant Vihar, Cpc, New Delhi-110057 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abjps2875D Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Batra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Batra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shankar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 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…

Tuff Guard Force Private Limited, Ghatkopar West vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2450/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Tuff Guard Force Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income 207, Kails Esplanade, Lbs Marg, Vs. Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Ghatkopar (W), Delhi. Mumbai 400 086 Pan No.Aabcb4892K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri D.B. Shah. Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022. O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.28.01.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri D.B. Shah

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438Section 43B

…ts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 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…

Jagadish Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 278/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh T.R., A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

Jagadish Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 277/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh T.R., A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

Bhupendra Nath Pandey, Varanasi vs. ACIT, R - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 31/VNS/2021[2018-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2016

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Nath Pandey Assistant Director Of Income 6-159/27, Kashi Enclave V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Colony, Pahadiya Sarnath, Processing Center , Varanasi-221007, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Acit, Range-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Ajfpp1273J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak K Gujarati, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…rnataka High Court and Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer. However, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has decided this issue in favour of Revenue in CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170(Guj.) ; Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [Tax Appeal No. 1256 of 2018, dated 15-10-2018 and PCIT v. Suzlon Energy Limited reported in (2020) 115 taxmann.com 340(Guj). Thus, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that to get deduction towards employees contribution towards PF/ESI and other welfare funds, the employer ought t…