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

Malgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2309/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhmalgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cpc, Bangalore 8, Kamala Bhavan 560100 Sharma, Industrial Estates Walbhat Road Ram Mandir (E) 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecm8352L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : B.K. Bagchi Date Of Hearing 13.05.2022 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 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2019-20. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Of Rs. 27,62,936/Being Payment Of Pf & Esic Dues W/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act Considering The Same As Not Deposited On Time Ignoring The Fact That The Delay Was Marginal & Payment Was Made Before Filing The Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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…

Babubhai Jagjivandas, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Banglore

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

ITA 2054/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhbabubhai Jagjivandas Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 128, Vishnu Niketan, Tax(Cpc), Bangalore Prathna Samaj Road, [Acit-19(1)Mumbai] New Charni Road, Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400004 Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafb5829N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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…

Aura Facilities Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore - CPC

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1429/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar RuthalaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…be countenanced. The date on which intimation/order under Section 143(1) of the Act was passed the issue stood decided in the favour of the Appellant by virtue of the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd.: 366 ITR 1 (Bom) and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd.: 319 ITR 306 (noted by CIT(A) in paragraph 3.3.1 of the order). Even assuming arguendo that the stand of the CIT(A)/Revenue is acceptable, the issue was not free from doubt in any case and fell in the category of debatable issue which could not have been addressed by way of add…

Dicitex Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1715/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2017-18

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) & Could Be Allowed As Deduction.

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…at the minimum, cannot fall in this category. Our attention was invited to Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgments in the cases 4 ITA No.1715 & 1716/Mum.2021 M/s. Dicitex Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., 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…

Shankar Packgings Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 316/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Shankar Packagings Vs. National Faceless Appeal Limited , 303, Turf Centre, Delhi Estate, Shakti Mills New Delhi Lane,Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West) Mumbai – 400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8076P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Apurva R. Shah Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2022 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, 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. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In Not Adjudicating The Appellant'S Claim On Merits Of The Issue But Merely Holding That The Appellant Ought To Have Filed An Appeal Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) & Not Against The Order Rejecting The Proposal U/S. 154. 2. In Not Appreciating That By The Said Action The Nfac Has Therefore Approved An Incorrect Act Done Whilst Processing The Return Filed.

For Appellant: Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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…

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 2031/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor 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: ITA Nos. 2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20 6 Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT, CPC 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon’ble High C…

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 2030/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor 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: ITA Nos. 2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20 6 Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT, CPC 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon’ble High C…

B.K.Khare & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhb.K. Khare & Co. Vs. Acit 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4Th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafb0265E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…lore, i.e ITA No. 2051/Mum/2021 dated 27.04.2022. We have also perused the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction Bombay High Court in the 3 ITA No.230/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 B.K. Khare And Co. Vs. ACIT, 16(2) case of CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom) and decision of GhatgePatil 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 GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (supra)…

B.K.Khare & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhb.K. Khare & Co. Vs. Acit 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4Th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafb0265E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…AT, Bench ‘F’ viz. Usha Garments Mfg. Co. Pvt. ltd. Vs. DCIT, CPC Bangalore, i.e ITA No. 2051/Mum/2021 dated 27.04.2022. We have also 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 GhatgePatil 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 3 ITA No.229/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 B.K. Khare And Co. Vs. ACIT, 16(2) on account of delayed payment in view of amendment to Se…

B.K.Khare & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhb.K. Khare & Co. Vs. Acit 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4Th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafb0265E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…AT, Bench ‘F’ viz. Usha Garments Mfg. Co. Pvt. ltd. Vs. DCIT, CPC Bangalore, i.e ITA No. 2051/Mum/2021 dated 27.04.2022. We have also 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 GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 249 (Bom). In the case of Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. it is held that payment of 3 ITA No.228/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 B.K. Khare And Co. Vs. ACIT, 16(2) employees contribution towards provident fund could not be disallowed on account of delayed payment in view of amendment to Sec…

Veritas Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2457/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…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 GhatgePatil 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 GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (supra)…

Visa Consolidated Support Services (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2454/MUM/2021[2019-20AAACV009394F]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awashty & Shri Amarjit Singhvisa Consolidated Vs. Centralized Processing Support Services (India) Center, Bengaluru Private Limited Karnataka - 560500 1702, A Wing, The Capital, 17Th Floor, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacv9394F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Anish Thacker &For Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 3 ITA No.2454/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2019-20 Visa Consolidated Support Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Centralized Processing Center GhatgePatil 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 a…

Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, Sonebhadra vs. Dy. CIT, (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…Bombay High Court has consistently held this issue in favour of the tax-payer in its other decisions also such as Geekay Security Services Private Limited v. DCIT reported in (2019) 101 taxmann.com 192(Bom.), CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Limited (2014) 366 ITR 1(Bom.). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in AIMIL Limited (supra) held that if employees contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payments but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as…

Aevitas Pharmagro Tech P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1675/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1675/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Aevitas Pharmagro Tech Private Limited, B2-210, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 072. Pan: Aaacp-6240-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Cpc) Bengaluru -560 500. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Milan Dattani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Jain सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Milan DattaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ए ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. "रफौर रहमान, लेखा सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1675/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Aevitas Pharmagro Tech Private Limited, B2-210, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 072. PAN: AAACP-6240-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(CPC) Bengaluru -560 500. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : Shri Milan Dattani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent by : Shri…

Megger India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2130/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR–CIT
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…

Vardan Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Income Tax Dept, Mumbai

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

ITA 2344/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvardan Nursing Home Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangaluru Private Limited, Cpc Income Tax 65, Jawahar Nagar, Opp Department Prakash Hotel, Goregaon West, Mumbai – 400062 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccv2156P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 GhatgePatil 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 GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (supra)…

M/S. Nath Indutries Ltd, Mumbai vs. A.Ci.T. Circle 1(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2321/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, 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…

Bharat Tin Works, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2235/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, 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…

M/S. Harmony Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd, DCIT CPC vs. DCIT, CPC, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 2033/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 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 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Page 3 of 10 purpose of a d…

Hercules Hoists Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Itd, Bangalore

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 2000/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…onal High Court- as in Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 3 of 10 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…