CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited

366 ITR 1High Court2014#437 most cited

What is CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited authority for?

Employees' contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B if deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, even if deposited after the expiry of the statutory time period specified in the applicable fund's statute.

206

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited · 366 ITR 1 · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · employees' contribution to PF ESIC · provident fund · ESI · deduction allowability · due date of return filing · statutory due date · Bombay High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 115JAASection 115JBSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)

Issues it is cited on

section 44ab(a)section 143(1)(a)(iii)section 143(1)(a)(i)processing under section 143(1)section 158besection 143(1)(a)(iv)section 113section 36(l)(va)section 92fclarificatory amendmentretrospective amendmentsection 36(l)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bangalore Shirt Co.P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal as well as the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 788/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “बी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष M/s Bangalore Shirt Co.Pvt Income-tax Officer-3(1)(2), 6th floor, Ltd,115, Cama Industrial Estae, फनधभ/ Sun Mill Compound, Lower Parel Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. (W), Mumbai-400013 M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Income-tax Officer-3(1)(2), M/s Bangalore Shirt Co.Pvt 6th floor, Ltd, Mumbai-400013 फनधभ/ Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेख…

Aimco Presticides Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9211/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran, DR
Section 145(3)

…disputed fact that the payments are made before the due date for filing the return of income. Considering the settled position on the issue in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 1 (Bom.), which is relevant for the proposition that by virtue of the deletion of the proviso of section 43B of the Act, the payments made up to the due date for filing of the return of income are outside the disallowance u/s 43B of the Act. Considering the same, we direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee following the said ratio laid down i…

Forbes & Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7349/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. Dcit, Circle 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan Ground Floor, Forbes Bldg. Vs. M.K. Road Charanjit Rai Marg Mumbai 400020 Fort, Mumbai 400001 Pan - Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Milin ThakoreFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Kumar Sinha
Section 271(1)(c)

…udit report and to the AO vide letter dated 23.09.2004. It was submitted that the deduction of PF/ESIC is allowable as a deduction to the assessee in the light of, inter alia, the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of: - (i) CIT vs. HOCL (366 ITR 1) (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749) (Bom) 8.2 The authorities below have not disputed the averments of the assessee that the PF/ESIC amounting to `6,852/- was paid to the government before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The disallowance and consequent levy of penalty by autho…

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Print House (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4143/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4143/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S. Print House (India) Pvt. Ltd. 15(2)(2), Plot No.6, Datta Mandir Road बिधम/ Room No.403, 4Th Floor, Bhandup (West), Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 078. Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 5669E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Shri Uday Bhaskar JakkeFor Respondent: None
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n to PF/ESIC as per provisions of section 36(1)(va) the appellant relied on the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s. Pranav Aditya Spinning Mills in ITA No.6855/Mum/2008 and the jurisdictional HC decision in the case of Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1. I find the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the High Court in the above mentioned case.” 4. The issue under consideration is squarely covered by the Bombay High Court 366 ITR 1 wherein it was held that if the contribution is paid before last date u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(X) the same cannot be disallowed. Hon’ble High Court in the ca…

Silicon Interfaces P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8624/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. Saravanan-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर यकर यकर अपील यकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/8624/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 वष" M/s. Silicon Interfaces Pvt.…

Voltas Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1667/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Voltas Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(3) Voltas House - A Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Dr. Babasahed Ambedkar Road M.K. Road Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400033 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacv2809D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom.). It is prayed that in view of the above, the disallowance of `46,519/- under section 43B of the Act be deleted. 5.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. supported the decision of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. 5.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perus…