CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited

M/S. Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…ng return of income and same shall be allowed as deduction us 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. (c) The CIT(A) erred in not following the binding decision of Hon‘ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd [366 ITR 1] and CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports [td [368 ITR 749] while deciding the issue in appeal.” ISSUE NO.1 A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20 4. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.4,51,308/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act out of Employees Contribution to PF & ESIC. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that t…

Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…ng return of income and same shall be allowed as deduction us 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. (c) The CIT(A) erred in not following the binding decision of Hon‘ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd [366 ITR 1] and CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports [td [368 ITR 749] while deciding the issue in appeal.” ISSUE NO.1 A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20 4. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.4,51,308/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act out of Employees Contribution to PF & ESIC. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that t…

Ani Integrated Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, 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 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…

Quarter Deck, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, CPC Bangalore

In the result, this appeal is allowed

…onal High Court- as in Assessment Year: 2018-19 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…

Forcepoint Software Consulting India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailforcepoint Software Vs. Assistant Director Of Consulting India Pvt. Income Tax, Cpc Ltd., Level 2, Kalpataru Bangalore Synergy Opp. Grand Karnataka 560500 Hyatt, Santacruz (East) Mumbai- 400055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacw6672P Appellant .. Respondent

…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)…

Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir CPC``, Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvijay Bag Singh Vs. The Deputy Rajpurohit, Unit No. 2 Commissioner Of Income Building No. 2 Jaswant Tax, Cpc, Bangalore, Bagh, Sion Trombay 560100 Road, Chembur Mumbai – 400071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adqpr7848L Appellant .. Respondent

…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)…

Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

…al 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 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Page 3 of 10 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…

Geeta Udyog, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgeeta Udyog Vs. Asst. Director Of Income 404, Gupta Bhavan, Tax, Cpc, Bengluru Ahmedabad Street, Centralized Processing Carnac Bunder, Centre, Income Tax Mumbai – 400009 Department, Bengaluru 560500 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfg1369H Appellant .. Respondent

…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. Gia India Laboratories Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgia India Laboratory Pvt. Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Ltd., 10Th Floor, Trade Bangalore, Centre, Bandra Kurla 560500 Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccg9457G Appellant .. Respondent

…due date specified in the ESI Act, but before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. We have perused the decision of Honourable jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom) and the case of Ghatgepatil Transport Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom). In the case of Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd, the Hon’ble High Court held that where assessee made payment of employee’s contribution towards PF, assessee’s claim could not be disallowed on account of delayed payment in view of amendment to Section 43B of the Act. In the ca…

M/S. Flag Security Services, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(1) -3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Flag Security Vs. Ito Ward-23(1)-3 Services, 101, Navjyot Mumbai Chs, Near Kadamwadi, St. Anthony Street, Vakola, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaff7581M Appellant .. Respondent

…gal paper book comprising judicial pronouncements in support of his claim. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that prior to the amendment in the Finance Act, 2021, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom); held that where assessee company made payment of employees' contribution towards Provident Fund, assessee’s claim could not be disallowed on account of delayed payment in view of amendment to section 43B of the Act. The Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on decision of Ghatgepatil Transport Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 249 (Bom) wherein it is held t…

New Consolidated Construction Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dditcpc, Bangalore

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

Bench: Us:

…e the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed in section 139(1) of the act. With the assistance of Ld. Representative, we have perused the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 and GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. 228 taxman 340. In the case of GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that both employers and employee’s contributions are covered under amendment to section 43B and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 and paym…

M/S. Empower Activity Camps Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

…the Ld.Counsel contended that amended law cannot be applied retrospectively. The Ld.Counsel also submitted that prior to the amendment in the Finance Act, 2021, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom); held that where assessee company made payment of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund that could not be disallowed in view of amendment to section 43B of the Act. The Ld.Counsel has also placed reliance on decision of Ghatgepatil Transport Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 249 (Bom) wherein it is held that section 43B of the Act is applicable to…

M/S. Empower Activity Camps Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

…the Ld.Counsel contended that amended law cannot be applied retrospectively. The Ld.Counsel also submitted that prior to the amendment in the Finance Act, 2021, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom); held that where assessee company made payment of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund that could not be disallowed in view of amendment to section 43B of the Act. The Ld.Counsel has also placed reliance on decision of Ghatgepatil Transport Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 249 (Bom) wherein it is held that section 43B of the Act is applicable to…

Kamla Landmarc Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

…the Ld.Counsel contended that amended law cannot be applied retrospectively. The Ld.Counsel also submitted that prior to the amendment in the Finance Act, 2021, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom); held that where assessee company made payment of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund that could not be disallowed in view of amendment to section 43B of the Act. The Ld.Counsel has also placed reliance on decision of Ghatgepatil Transport Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 249 (Bom) wherein it is held that section 43B of the Act is applicable to…

Umberto Ceramics Interanational Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Us:

…or before the due date of filing return of income and allowable u/s43B of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now. 2.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd 366 ITR 1 and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd 228 Taxman 340. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have directed AO to set off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against income computed under the head business and profession. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have directed AO to d…

Vishalakshi Vishwanath, Thane vs. CIT Appeal Thane 2, Thane

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

Bench: Us:

…or before the due date of filing return of income and allowable u/s43B of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now. 2.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd 366 ITR 1 and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd 228 Taxman 340. It is submitted that it be so held now. ITA No. 1445/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 2 Vishalakshi Vishwanath Vs. CIT(A) 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have directed AO to set off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against income computed under the head business and profession. It is submitted tha…