CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited

Jasbir Singh Kaberwal, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

…icial precedents of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court- as in this case, at the minimum, cannot fall in this category. Our attention was invited to Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court‟s judgments in the cases of CIT Vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT Vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom)].What is on record, in this case, is an audit report which is prepared by a third party, i.e. an independent tax auditor, and a lapse in the tax audit report, as indeed in this case, cannot be put against the assessee for the purpose of a disallowance under section 143(1). For…

Duck Creek Technologies India LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 26 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

…icial precedents of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court- as in this case, at the minimum, cannot fall in this category. Our attention was invited to Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgments in the cases of CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom)]. What is on record, in this case, is an audit report which is prepared by a third party, i.e. an independent tax auditor, and a lapse in the tax audit report, as indeed in this case, cannot be put against the assessee for the purpose of a disallowance under section 143(1). For…

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

…icial precedents of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court- as in this case, at the minimum, cannot fall in this category. Our attention was invited to Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgments in the cases of CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom)]. What is on record, in this case, is an audit report which is prepared by a third party, i.e. an independent tax auditor, and a lapse in the tax audit report, as indeed in this case, 143(1). For this short reason alone, according to the learned counsel, the impugned adjustment…

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

…icial precedents of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court- as in this case, at the minimum, cannot fall in this category. Our attention was invited to Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgments in the cases of CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom)]. What is on record, in this case, is an audit report which is prepared by a third party, i.e. an independent tax auditor, and a lapse in the tax audit report, as indeed in this case, 143(1). For this short reason alone, according to the learned counsel, the impugned adjustment…

Hemson Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

…icial precedents of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court- as in this case, at the minimum, cannot fall in this category. Our attention was invited to Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgments in the cases of CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom)]. What is on record, in this case, is an audit report which is prepared by a third party, i.e. an independent tax auditor, and a lapse in the tax audit report, as indeed in this case, cannot be put against the assessee for the purpose of a disallowance under section 143(1). For…

Hemson Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

…icial precedents of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court- as in this case, at the minimum, cannot fall in this category. Our attention was invited to Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgments in the cases of CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom)]. What is on record, in this case, is an audit report which is prepared by a third party, i.e. an independent tax auditor, and a lapse in the tax audit report, as indeed in this case, cannot be put against the assessee for the purpose of a disallowance under section 143(1). For…

M/S. Logicon Alternate Fuels Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

…icial precedents of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court- as in this case, at the minimum, cannot fall in this category. Our attention was invited to Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgments in the cases of CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom)]. What is on record, in this case, is an audit report which is prepared by a third party, i.e. an independent tax auditor, and a lapse in the tax audit report, as indeed in this case, cannot be put against the assessee for the purpose of a disallowance under section 143(1). For…

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Madhu India Deco Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit-15(2)(2) Vs. M/S Madhu India Deco Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Limited, 20/21, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Navnandavan Indl Estate, Road, Marine Lines, L.B.S Marg, Mulund Mumbai – 400 020 (West), Mumbai – 400 080 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadcp1825G Respondent .. Appellant

…anation to Sec. 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. 7. The ld. CIT(A) had delted the addition following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics ITA No. 1385/Mum/2020 A.Y.2014-15 5 M/s Madhu India Deco Ltd. Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 holding that the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income, therefore, the delay in making employees contribution to provident fund is allowable deduction. 8. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessee has not deposited the employees contribution aggregating to Rs.98,604/- within the due date as…

The Malad Sahakari Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

…PF was deposited before the due date of filing return and was allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 1 (Bombay). Further, the Tribunal has in number of decisions held that the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 are applicable for Assessment Year 2021-22, and therefore, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance by placing reliance on the same. On the basis of the aforesaid, He submitted that the assessing authority was incorrect…

The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return Prescribed Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

…SIC was deposited before the due date of filing return and was allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 1 (Bombay). Further, the Tribunal has in number of decisions held that the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 are applicable for Assessment Year 2021-22, and therefore, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance by placing reliance on the same. ITA. No. 2426/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 7. The Ld. Departmental Representativ…

Samosaran Yarns Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return Prescribed Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

…as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2015) 53 taxmann.com 141 (Bombay), CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 1 (Bombay) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). Further, the Tribunal has in number of decisions held that the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 are applicable for Assessment Year 2021-22, 2 ITA. No. 2111/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 and therefore, the CI…

M/S Paper Recycle, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

…icial precedents of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court- as in this case, at the minimum, cannot fall in this category. Our attention was invited to Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgments in the cases of CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom)]. What is on record, in this case, is an audit report which is prepared by a third party, i.e. an independent tax auditor, and a lapse in the tax audit report, as indeed in this case, cannot be put against the assessee for the purpose of a disallowance under section 143(1). For…

Ace Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CPC, Bangalore, ITO WD- 1(1), Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2017-18 - A.Y. 2018-19

…der dated November 17, 2021 (2021) 133 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi-Trib.) 2. Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd vs Dy.CIT in ITA No.1785/Mum/2021 order dated April 27, 2022. 3. CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd 368 ITR 749 (Bom); 4. CIT vs Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd 366 ITR 1 (Bom); 5. PCIT vs Official Liquidator, High Court, Mumbai in Pranav Agro Industries Ltd ITXA No.333 of 2017 (Bombay). 6. The issue pertaining to condonation of delay has been considered by us and in order to give last opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and…

Ace Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC Bangalore & ITO WD1(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2017-18 - A.Y. 2018-19

…der dated November 17, 2021 (2021) 133 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi-Trib.) 2. Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd vs Dy.CIT in ITA No.1785/Mum/2021 order dated April 27, 2022. 3. CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd 368 ITR 749 (Bom); 4. CIT vs Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd 366 ITR 1 (Bom); 5. PCIT vs Official Liquidator, High Court, Mumbai in Pranav Agro Industries Ltd ITXA No.333 of 2017 (Bombay). 6. The issue pertaining to condonation of delay has been considered by us and in order to give last opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and…

Jt, CIT (OSD) 11(2)(2), Mumbai vs. State Street Syntel Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Jt Cit (Osd) State Street Syntel Services 11(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd. 421, 4Th Floor, B–101 To 104, Delphi Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Churchgate, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaics 0964 Q Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022

…due date of filing of the return of income. The learned CIT – A deleted the disallowance following decision of the honourable jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT versus Ghatge patil transport private limited and CIT versus Hindustan organic chemicals Ltd 366 ITR 1. As the learned CIT – A has deleted the disallowance following the decision of the honourable jurisdictional High Court and no contrary decision is pointed out by the learned departmental representative, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A in deleting the above disallowance . Accordingly, ground numbers 5 – 6 of the app…

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

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

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:

…specified in PF/ESIC Acts but before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed in section 139(1) of the act. We have perused the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom) and decision of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 249 (Bom). In the case of Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. it is held that payment of employees contribution towards provident fund could not be disallowed on account of delayed payment in view of amendment to Section 43B of the Act. In the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (supr…

Greenglobe Fuelsolutions, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income And, Hence, Allowable As Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 43B.

…er Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act in terms of the following decisions of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2015) 53 taxmann.com 141 (Bombay), CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 1 (Bombay) and decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). Further, the Tribunal has in number of decisions held that the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 are applicable for Assessment Year 2021-22, and therefore, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance by placing re…

Aaryans Security Force, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is allowed

…icial precedents of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court- as in this case, at the minimum, cannot fall in this category. Our attention was invited to Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court‟s judgments in the cases of CIT Vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom)] and CIT Vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom)].What is on record, in this case, is an audit report which is prepared by a third party, i.e. an independent tax auditor, and a lapse in the tax audit report, as indeed in this case, cannot be put against the assessee for the purpose of a disallowance under section 143(1). For…

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

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

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

…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…

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

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

…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…