How many judgments cite CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited?

206 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited (366 ITR 1), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 115JAA, Section 115JB, Section 142(1), Section 147.

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 250 Section 115JAA Section 115JB Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 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 158be section 143(1)(a)(iv)section 113 section 36(l)(va)section 92f clarificatory amendment retrospective amendment section 36(l)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited

DCIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6862/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

…& 135/MUM/2021 M/s. Food and Inns Ltd., (ii) Vinay Cements 213 CTR 268 (SC) (iii) Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 306 (SC) (iv) Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 320 (Del.) (v) P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Del.) (vi) CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 233 ITR 530 (Bom.) (viii) CIT v. Magus Customers Dialog Pvt.Ltd. 371 ITR 244 (Kar) 7.2 Considering the above, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition. 7.3. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. We find that the case laws refe…

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6860/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6859/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…al decisions in his written submissions, in which Courts have allowed extended period as provided u/s 43B while allowing deduction even to the employees contribution towards PF deducted by employer , as under: 1. CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Limited v. 366 ITR 1(Bom.) 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 1TR 508 (Delhi HC) 3. Pr. CIT v. Planman HR (P) Ltd, [IT Appeal No. 170 of 2018, dated 12.02.2018 (Delhi HC) 4. CIT v. Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327 (HP) 5. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 47 (All) 6. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.[2014] 366 ITR…

Newage Fire Protection Engineers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT Appeals National Faceless Appeal, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 680/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmannewage Fire Protection Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 101, Champaklal Udyog Bhavan, Sion, Mumbai-400022. Pan: Aaccn9026C ............ Appellant Vs. Cit (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi. ............ Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Manish Sanghavi, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Kishore Dhule, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Hearing Via Webex

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Sanghavi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Kishore Dhule, Sr. DR

Section 2Section 250Section 28Section 36Section 43Section 43B

…ordships were seized of the late payment of the employees contribution to P.F. Considering the position of law as settled by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (2014 366 ITR 1 (Bombay), their Lordships qua the employee contribution decided the issue in favour of the assessee. No doubt the said decision did not take into consideration these specific amendments carried out by the Finance Act, 2021, however, the issue of retrospective effect of specific amendments stands well examined. This decision we note fully supports t…

ACIT 3 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.01/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ ACIT-3(2)(1) M/s. LML Ltd. Room No.674, 6th Floor, 714, Raheja Chambers, 213, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACL0141N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR) Assessee by: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 12/08/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 01 /09/2021 आदेश / O R D…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…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 Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd. Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2007-08 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 whi…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pearl Freight Services P Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7334/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7334/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Pearl Freight Services Tax, Circle 15(2)(2), Room No. P. Ltd. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, B-106, Great Eastern फनाभ/ M.K. Road, Marine Lines, Summit, Sector-15, Cbd Mumbai-400020 Belapur, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 614 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aadcp1825G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 14.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-24, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-24/Acit-15(2)(2)/It-360/2016-17 Vide Order Dated 30.08.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai (In Short Acit/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 20.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). Pearl Freight Services Pvt. Ltd.; Ay. 14-15 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Employees Contribution To Provident Fund As Per Explanation 36(1)(Va) Read With Section 2(24)(X) Of The Act. For This, The Effective Ground Raised By Revenue Is Ground No.1, Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(X)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ction 36(1)(va) of the Act has not allowable. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pearl Freight Services Pvt. Ltd.; AY. 14-15 the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Organic Chemical 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) has allowed the claim by observing in Para 5 to 7 as under: - “5. We find no merit in the aforestated contention. Section 43B of the Income Tax Act 1961 was inserted in the Act with effect from 1st April 1984 by which the mercantile system of accounting with regard to tax, duty and contribution to welfare funds stood discontinued and under…

Savani Heritage Conservation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1956/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2021AY 2019-20

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).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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 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…

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 3379/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry (Ld. SrFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra-CIT DR and Shri Tharian Oommen-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…ssessment. The action of Ld. AO, upon confirmation by Ld. CIT(A), is in further challenge before us. 13.3 We find this issue stood covered in assessee‟s favor by the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd. (366 ITR 1) wherein Hon‟ble High Court, following the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in CIT V/s Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) held that amendments to the said section brought about by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1st April, 2004 were retrospective in nature and would operate from 1st April, 1988. This being the case, the impugned disallowance s…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kaizen Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2899/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2899/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle-6(3)(2) M/S. Kaizen Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, Room No.576 67,Shanta Prasad, Hindu Colony Lane 01 Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Dadar, Mumbai-400 014. Pan/Gir No. Aadck-1418-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.34/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2899/Mum/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Kaizen Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. Acit-Circle-6(3)(2) बनाम 67,Shanta Prasad, Hindu Colony Lane 01 Aaykar Bhavan, Room No.576 / Vs. Dadar, Mumbai-400 014. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aadck-1418-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh -Ld.Sr.DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69C

…e. The ground thus raised before us stand dismissed. 8. The last addition u/s 36(1)(va) was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) by relying upon the binding judicial precedent in the shape of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (366 ITR 1). Since no contrary decision is on record, our interference is uncalled for. Ground No.6 stand dismissed. Conclusion 9. The appeal as well as cross-objections stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 04th March, 2021 (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) "ाियक सद" / Judicial Member लेखा सद" / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 04/03/2021 S…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…upra). The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer in the case of CIT v. Rai Agro Industries Limited reported in (2011) 334 ITR 122( Punj & Har.) ;CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills Private Limited reported in (2014) 366 ITR 167( Punj. & Har.). Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case(s) of CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur reported in (2014) 43 taxmann.com 411(Raj.) and in CIT v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited reported in (2014) 49 taxmann.com 540(Raj) has decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer. Similarly, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and Hon’ble Himach…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…mbay 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 wel…

DCIT Cir 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tiger Steel Engineering India Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1192/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon’Bledcit Circle 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Tiger Steel Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Bldg. No. 5, Sector – 3 R.No. 451, 4Th Floor Millennium Business Park, Mahape Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Navi Mumbai – 400 710 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Anand KolageFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh

Section 36(1)(va)

…f employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC. The tax effect in this appeal is less than ₹.50 Lakhs. Even otherwise on merits the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., [366 ITR 1] and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd., [319 ITR 306] deleted 3 M/s. Tiger Steel Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer observing that contribution payable by the employer to the PF or any other mode for the welfare of the employees was allowable if paid before the due…

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4077/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44

…ed in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alto Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306), decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749) and Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (366 ITR 1). Since learned CIT(A) has followed above said decisions, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. 22. Another common ground raised in all the appeals of the Revenue relates to deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of provision made for uncertain liability. 23. Since the…

Ecgc Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3569/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44

Khimji K.D. Sons Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 269/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.269/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Khimji K.D. Sons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Plot No.621/A, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pin-751007 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabck 3660 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Bivek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s contribution governed by section 36(1)(va). We find that the following decisions of the various High Courts are in favour of the assessee allowing deduction of employee’s contribution paid beyond due date: (i) CIT vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Limited – 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) (iii) CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. – 321 ITR 508 (Del.) (iv) Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd vs CIT – 215 Taxman 597 (Kar.) (v) CIT vs. Raj Agro Industries Ltd. – 334 ITR 122 (P&H) o (vi) CIT vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. – 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) (vii) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Saha…

Milind Gupta, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is partly

ITA 382/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Jagabandhu Sahu/Goutam Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…contribution governed by section 36(1)(va). We find that the following decisions of the various High Courts are in favour of the assessee allowing deduction of employee’s contribution paid beyond due date: (i) CIT vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Limited – 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) (iii) CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. – 321 ITR 508 (Del.) P a g e 2 | 11 ITA Nos. 382 & 383/CTK/2017 Asse ssment Years : 2 031 -14 & 20 14- 15 (iv) Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd vs CIT – 215 Taxman 597 (Kar.) (v) CIT vs. Raj Agro Industries Ltd. – 334 ITR 122 (P&H) o (vi) CIT vs.…

Asst CIT-4(2), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4899/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhito 4(2)(2), Hindustan Organic Room No. 640, Chemical Ltd, Post Office Vs. 6Thflooraayakarbhavan, Rasayani, Taluka , District Mk Road Mumbai , Raigarh Maharashtra Pan: Aaach 2663P 410207 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO 4(2)(2), Hindustan Organic Room No. 640, Chemical Ltd, Post Office Vs. 6thFloorAayakarBhavan, Rasayani, Taluka , District MK Road Mumbai , Raigarh Maharashtra PAN: AAACH 2663P 410207 Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri K. Gopal Advocate Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 06.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 06 .08.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by revenue is directed against…