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

M/S. Indigenous Bureau of India, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 82/MUM/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 81 & 82 /Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/S Indigenous Bureau Vs. Cit(A) Of India (Formerly Known As Nfac, Delhi Investigation Bureau Of India) 164, 3Rd Floor, Zaveri Chambers, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafi1617H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N. B. GandhiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani
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…

M/S. Indigenous Bureau of India, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 81/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 81 & 82 /Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/S Indigenous Bureau Vs. Cit(A) Of India (Formerly Known As Nfac, Delhi Investigation Bureau Of India) 164, 3Rd Floor, Zaveri Chambers, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafi1617H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N. B. GandhiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani
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…

Parekhplast India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 76/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.76/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Parekhplast India Limited, 101,Shiva Plaza ,Marol Industrial Co-Operative Limited, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aabcp-4523-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Nfac,Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Tejas Sodha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Tejas SodhaFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “सी” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अमरजीत"संह, लेखा सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.76/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Parekhplast India Limited, 101,Shiva Plaza ,Marol Industrial Co-operative Limited, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059. PAN: AABCP-4523-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. NFAC,DELHI. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : Shri Tejas Sodha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent by : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date of…

Gurudev Apparels, Tiruppur vs. DCIT, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 257/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:257/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250(6)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…ection 40A (3) is not relevant. What is relevant is the enactment itself, i.e. Section 40A (3). The income tax authorities have to give effect to the section as enacted by parliament. 4.4 One of the case laws cited by the appellant Anupam Teleservices vs ITO 366 ITR 1 22( Guj) is rendered under special circumstances when assessee’s business could have been adversely affected. In that case, the assessee had an account in a co-operative Bank and the other party did not accept the cheques from the co-operative bank as it took longer time for clearing. Another case law CIT VS lnterseas (233 CTR 0077)(Kerala) deals w…

Paramount Health Services & Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 2548/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhparamount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
Section 139Section 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…

M/S. Meremma Basavaraj Belli, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengalure

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 685/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…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…

Axis Carriers and Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…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…

Shri Tejindersingh S Anand, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…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 Shri Tejindersingh S. Anand ITA No.579/Mum./2022 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 p…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 429/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…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…

Chandresh Cabels Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 418/MUM/2022[2019-202]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-202

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…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…

Brillpharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 414/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi TamhankarFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…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…

M/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…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…

Atlas Castalloy Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1) (2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1505/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

…though paid beyond the time specified under the PF Act, were paid much before the due date for filing return of income. 2.1 The Learned CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Organic & Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 & many other High Courts. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendments made to Sec. 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 are retrospective in nature being only clarificatory or declaratory in nature and therefore, in not following decision of the Bombay High Court in favour of the appellant. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in con…

Paramount Health Services and Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 2547/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.2547 /Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2017-18) Paramount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
Section 139Section 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…

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT, RG-8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2440/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NahtaFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
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…

M/S. Chemtron Science Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2386/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.2386/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) M/S. Chemtron Science Laboratories Private Limited, El-47, Electronic Zone, Midc, Mahape, Navi Mumbai 400 710. Pan: Aaccc-3596-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-(Nafc) Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Shashank Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Act dated 16/10/2019 disallowed the aforesaid contributions u/s. 43B of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) assailing the disallowance. The CIT(A) following the decision in the case of Gujarat State Transport Corporation, 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170 and judgments by other non-Jurisdictional High Courts and referring to the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 disallowed assessee’s claim u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee vehemently submitted that the CIT(A) failed to follow the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdi…

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. -8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2113/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NahtaFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
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…

Nss Equipments India LLP, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1394/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1394/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Nss Equipments India Llp, Shetty House, Panchsheel Nagar, Vasant Patil Marg, Sion, Chnabhatti, Mumbai 400 022. Pan: Aakfn-7271-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.Cit, Cpc Bangalore, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No.48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 100. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “बी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1394/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) NSS Equipments India LLP, Shetty House, Panchsheel Nagar, Vasant Patil Marg, Sion, Chnabhatti, Mumbai 400 022. PAN: AAKFN-7271-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.CIT, CPC Bangalore, 1st Floor, Prestige Alpha No.48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 100. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपी…

Nm Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 363/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhnm Diagnostics Private Vs. Dcit, Cpc Limited, 32, Bangalore Summerville, Jn. Of 14Th 560500 & 33Rd, Above Bombay Blue Restaurant, Link Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadcr1280P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sunil Hirawat Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): 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 Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “(1) On Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.2,08,464/Being Belated Payment Of Provident Fund U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act.

For Appellant: Sunil HirawatFor 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…

Quick Builders, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 301/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhquick Builders Vs. Dcit, Circle 22(1) Plot No. 142, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 08, Piramal Shah House, S.V.Road, Chambers, Lalbaug, Khar, West, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafq0227F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Gyaneshwar Kataram &For Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…m/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 6 Quick Builders Vs. DCIT, Circle-22(1) 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…