How many judgments cite CIT v. Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd.?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd. (264 ITR 620), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(va), Section 2(24)(x), Section 143(1), Section 14B, Section 141, Section 250.

CIT v. Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd.

264 ITR 620High Court2003#4012 most cited

What is CIT v. Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd. authority for?

The term 'every month' in the Provident Fund Scheme refers to the month in which wages were actually earned and salary became payable, not the month in which the salary was paid. An employer's responsibility to deposit contributions is independent of the timing of salary payments.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd · Provident Fund Scheme · due date of deposit · employee's contribution · employer's contribution · month wages earned · salary payable · section 36(1)(va) · section 2(24)(x)

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 2(24)(x)Section 143(1)Section 14B Section 141 Section 250 Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

section 14b section 6(3)section 80jj section 38 section 43(b)section 40a(7)section 80jja employees contribution to pf section 80jjaa section 80j doctrine of merger section 36(1)(va)

Judgments citing CIT v. Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd.

Madhuri Sunil Zode, Mum vs. ADIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 35/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Madhuri Sunil Zode Adit Room No. 41, Building No. 28, Bangalore Sagarsangum, K. C. Road, Vs. Bandra Reclamati, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 38Section 43B

…n 15 days of close of every month” therefore must be interpreted as having reference to close of the month, for which, the wages are required to be paid. Such is also the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Madras Radiators and Pressings 264 ITR 620. Therefore, we hold that fifteen days period is to be counted from the last day of the month and date of payment of wages are irrelevant. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) and, hence, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld.…

Creative Textile Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 409/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Creative Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cpc, 212, Cama Indl. Esate, Sun Post Box No. -1 Electronic Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Vs. City Post Office, Mumbai-400013. Karnataka-560 100. Pan No. Aaacc 5458 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil Hirawat Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 36(1)(va)

…High Court in the However, we find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the However, we find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax v. Madras Radiators & tax v. Madras Radiators & Pressing Ltd. 264 ITR 620 Madras Pressing Ltd. 264 ITR 620 Madras has held that the term has held that the term “every month” in clause 58 of the Provident Fund Scheme should be read clause 58 of the Provident Fund Scheme should be read clause 58 of the Provident Fund Scheme should be read as month in which the wages were actually earned i.e. salary as month in which the…

Yad Associates, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Circle 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 333/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.333/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Yad Associates बिधम/ Assessing Officer, Circle- 10, Daulat Mension, 17(3) Vs. Barrack Road, New Marine Maharshi Karve Rd, New Lines-400020. Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafy0039P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Hirawat Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.12.2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.92,627/- By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For Belated Remittance Of Pf/Esic U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Sunil Hirawat Drew Our Attention To The Chart (Infra) Which Shows (I) Month Of Salary (Ii) Date On Which Salary Paid (Iii) Employees Contribution To Esic (Iv) Due Date Of Esic Payment (V) Actual Date Of Esic Payment & Delay In Payment In Accordance To The Assessee. Likewise, The Assessee Has Also Given The Chart Of Provident Fund Which Is As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…be disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act; and countering the Ld AR’s reliance on the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in Kanoi Papers (supra), the Ld DR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Radiators & Pressing Ltd. (264 ITR 620) (Madras) wherein their Lordship has held that the term “every month” in clause 58 of the Provident Fund Scheme should be read as month in which the wages were actually earned i.e. salary payable. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Madras High Court is reproduced as under: - “4. In our considered opinion, we are of the view that the Tribunal is…

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as

ITA 1028/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1027 & 1028/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. East Coast Constructions Tax & Industries Ltd., Central Circle-1(1) 4, Buhari Building, Chennai-34. Moores Road, Chennai-600 006. Pan: Aaace 1662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 02.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 801ASection 80ISection 8O

…ave taken cognizance to the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.(366 ITR 170), decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Madras Radiators Pressing Ltd. (264 ITR 620), the decision of Honble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT, Cochin Vs M/s Mercham Ltd. reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443 and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s LKP Securities Ltd [ITA 638/Mum/2012 dated 17.05.2013 wherein it was held that the employees’s contribution should be paid within the due date as provided in the…

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as

ITA 1027/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 02.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 801ASection 80ISection 8O

Nikhil Mohine, Parasia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of this unfeasibility would make the argument of s. 36(1)(va) as yielding to s. 43B, or as employee contribution being covered by s. 43B, in view of the clear legislative intent, as indefensible, even as held in CIT v. Madras Radiators & Pressings Ltd. [2003]264 ITR 620 (Mad). The only manner of holding so, as one can think of, is where the said intent is itself held as outside the legislative competence, which is not the case. In other words, the argument fails on the anvil of the clear language of the provisions of law, and the unfeasibility afore-said only adds to the same. 5.3 The amendments under reference…

Nikhil Mohine, Chhindwara vs. DCIT, CPC, Benguluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of this unfeasibility would make the argument of s. 36(1)(va) as yielding to s. 43B, or as employee contribution being covered by s. 43B, in view of the clear legislative intent, as indefensible, even as held in CIT v. Madras Radiators & Pressings Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 620 (Mad). The only manner of holding so, as one can think of, is where the said intent is itself held as outside the legislative competence, which is not the case. In other words, the argument fails on the anvil of the clear language of the provisions of law, and the unfeasibility afore-said only adds to the same. 5.3 The amendments under reference…

M/S Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly as indicated hereinabove

ITA 208/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Srivastava, CIT

Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…leting the disallowance holding that the employees contribution towards ESI & PF had been remitted well before the due date for filing the return, without appreciating the fact that the Madras HC in the case of CIT v Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 620 had made a clear demarcation between the employees' contribution and the employer's contribution and that the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2011] 10 taxman.com 26, after considering the decision of the case of Sabari Enterprises had clarified that the employees' contribution to PF & ESI is not governed by…

Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Dict, Chennai

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

ITA 581/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Anjaneyalu, IRS, CIT

Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…nt proceedings. Coming to the disallowance for delayed remittance of employee’s contribution of Provident Fund, observation of the ld. DRP was that judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Madras Radiators and Pressing Ltd (2013) 264 ITR 620 went in favour of the Revenue and it was rightly disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer. In so far as disallowance u/s.14A of the Act was concerned, ld. DRP held that such disallowance was justified even though assessee had not earned any exempted income. ITA No. 581/Mds/2016. :- 8 -: 10. In our opinion, the ld. DRP had disposed off the gr…