CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd.

243 ITR 48Supreme Court of India2000#1200 most cited

What is CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. authority for?

A subsequent amendment cannot impose a new tax burden or liability for a period when such liability did not exist. Therefore, additional tax or penalty cannot be levied for non-disclosure of income made taxable retrospectively by an amendment not in force at the time of the original return.

94

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. · 243 ITR 48 · retrospective tax amendment · new tax liability · prospective operation of statutes · additional tax levy · penalty for non-disclosure · Section 28 · assessment procedure · Finance Act 1990

Sections most often in play

Section 1894Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 1961Section 45(5)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 14

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 23(1a)section 104section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 194lakeyman insurancesection 160section 23(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(5), Chandigarh vs. Avtar Singh, Village- Kaimbwala

ITA 615/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by necess…

Sh. Amardeep Singh Athwal, Yamunanagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Yamunanagar

ITA 566/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon’ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by neces…

Sh. Amardeep Singh Athwal, Yamunanagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Yamunanagar

ITA 565/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon’ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by neces…

Sh. Ajit Singh, Pinjore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panchkula

ITA 539/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by necess…

Ranjeet Singh Khubber, Ambala vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ambala

ITA 50/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by necess…

Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Ambala vs. ITO, Ward-3, Ambala

ITA 275/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by necess…

Sh. Pargat Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward -1, Kaithal

ITA 180/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Navdeep Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by necess…

Sh. Gurinder Singh Grewal L/H of Parneet Kaur Grewal, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1), Chandigarh

ITA 129/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by necess…

M/S Yograj Chaudhary, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-5, Yamuna Nagar

ITA 116/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by necess…

Sh. Ramesh Chand, Jagadhri vs. ITO, Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

ITA 731/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by necess…

Saroj Chaudhary Bala, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panchkula

ITA 635/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon’ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by neces…

Smt. Shankri Devi, Panchkula vs. ACIT, Panckula Circle, Panchkula

ITA 596/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon’ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by neces…

Harmala, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nangal

ITA 432/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by necess…

Amrinder Singh Khubber, Ambala vs. ITO, W-5, Ambala

ITA 1043/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

…ise. 54. In Govind Das v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), it was emphasised that taxing provisions imposing a new liability are presumed to be prospective unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC), the Hon'ble Court held that a subsequent amendment cannot impose a tax burden for a period when such liability did not exist. 55. The Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) further clarified that fiscal amendments affecting substantive rights are presumed to be prospective, unless expressly or by necess…

Brahma Chandra Yadav, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Range 17, Ward 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3034/DEL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roybrahma Chandra Yadav Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing 1G 201 Awho Township, Officer Range-17, Gurjinder Vihar, Greater Ward 2(1)(1), Cgo, Noida, Gautam Buddha Complex-I Purani Hapur Nagar, Up-201310 Chungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abfpy5867K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…1 Brahma Chandra Yadav THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Brahma Chandra Yadav Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing 1G 201 AWHO Township, Officer Range-17, Gurjinder Vihar, Greater Ward 2(1)(1), CGO, Noida, Gautam Buddha Complex-I Purani Hapur Nagar, UP-201310 Chungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ABFPY5867K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Hemant Jain, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.11.2024 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appea…

Kathleen Confectioners, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-32, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1187/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate & Shri SonuFor Respondent: Shri Loviesh Shelley, JCIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…holding field which held that such employees’ contribution, if deposited within due date of filing ITR (which in the instant case of appellant was 15.02.2021) is not to be disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) SamtelColor Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman 1002 (Delhi) d) ITO Vs. Gujarat Power Corpn. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 217 (Gujarat) (2002) 122 Taxman 367 (Gujarat) e) CIT Vs. Vijayshree Ltd. (2014) 43 taxmann.com 396 (Calcutta High Court)…

Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd, 2017-18 vs. AO, Cir.11, Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 489/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.488 & 489/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd………...................................................……Appellant Narayanpur, P.O-Rajarhat, Gopalpur, W.B-700136. [Pan: Aabcv0405G] Vs. Ao, Circle-11, Kolkata..................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Chirajit Goswami, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments. 3. The Issue Raised By The Assessee Has Come To Rest By The Recent Verdict Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…thin due date of filing ITR (which in the instant case of appellant was 15.02.2021) is not to be disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. I.T.A No.488&489/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2017-18 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman 1002 (Delhi) d) ITO Vs. Gujarat Power Corpn. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 217 (Gujarat) (2002) 122 Taxman 367 (Gujarat) e) CIT Vs. Vijayshree Ltd. (2014) 43 taxmann.com 396 (Calcutta High Court…

Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd, 2017-18 vs. AO, Cir.11, Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 488/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.488 & 489/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd………...................................................……Appellant Narayanpur, P.O-Rajarhat, Gopalpur, W.B-700136. [Pan: Aabcv0405G] Vs. Ao, Circle-11, Kolkata..................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Chirajit Goswami, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments. 3. The Issue Raised By The Assessee Has Come To Rest By The Recent Verdict Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…thin due date of filing ITR (which in the instant case of appellant was 15.02.2021) is not to be disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. I.T.A No.488&489/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2017-18 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman 1002 (Delhi) d) ITO Vs. Gujarat Power Corpn. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 217 (Gujarat) (2002) 122 Taxman 367 (Gujarat) e) CIT Vs. Vijayshree Ltd. (2014) 43 taxmann.com 396 (Calcutta High Court…

Vishash Agarwal, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dibrugarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 39/GTY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.39/Gty/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vishesh Agarwal…………………..……....….........…..........….…… Appellant C/O Assam Pushpak Travel Agency, Makum Road, Tinsukia, Assam – 786170. [Pan: Aghpa7072R] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dibrugarh……………..….…..…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumendu Sekhar Das, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.03.2020 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vishesh Agarwal contribution, if deposited within due date of filing ITR (which in the instant case of appellant was 15.02.2021) is not to be disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman 1002 (Delhi) d) ITO Vs. Gujarat Power Corpn. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 217 (Gujarat) (2002) 122 Taxman 367 (Gujarat) e) CIT Vs. Vijayshree Ltd. (2014) 43 taxmann.com 396 (Calcutta High Court…

Mr Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Indore

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 71/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234ASection 271A

…677/Ind/2019 order dated 08.10.2021 and (ii) ITAT, Jabalpur ACIT Vs. Sandesh Kumar Jain, ITA No. 41/JAB/2020 order dated 31.10.2022. Further reliance is also placed on Govind das Vs. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), CIT Vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) and Piu Ghosh Vs. DCIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 226 (Calcutta HC) to support the proposition that any amendment made in statute shall apply prospectively and not retrospectively. At that juncture, the Bench questioned Ld. AR on the later and recent decision of ITAT, Indore in Narendra Kumar Shantilal Jain HUF Vs. PCIT, ITA No. 124/Ind/2022, orde…