CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.

350 ITR 327High Court2013#170 most cited

What is CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. authority for?

Deduction for employee contributions to EPF/ESI is allowable under section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), irrespective of the due dates under the respective welfare fund statutes.

425

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. · 350 ITR 327 · Section 43B · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 139(1) · EPF ESI deduction · employee contribution · due date payment · Himachal Pradesh High Court · Provident Fund · Employees’ State Insurance

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158besection 113section 92fclarificatory amendmentretrospective amendmentsection 158bbsection 158bsection 36(1)(va)section 158section 43bsection 132asection 36(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.

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

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

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

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

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

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

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

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7 ITA No.2456 & 2457/Mum/2021 A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Veritas Infratech Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1) 7. Spectrum…

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

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Dolcas Botanosys Pvt. Ltd. Bikaner, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore/ACIT, C-1 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…’ contribution paid to relevant fund after the due date under respective laws but upto due date u/s 139(1) is allowable as deduction. We would like to quote a few decisions as under: (i) High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CIT Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 (ii) Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. (iii) Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., (2014) 368 ITR 749. (iv) CIT Vs. Nuchem Ltd. [2015] 59 com455 (Punjab & Haryana) (v) CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) (vi) CIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) (vii)…

Ticomp Heels Private Limited, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 86/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Gujrat State Road I.T.A. No.86/Lkw/2021 Assessm…

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

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Steel Bird International, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 63, New Delhi

ITA 1573/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1573/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Steel Bird International, Vs Jcit, 2E/3, Jhandewalan Extn., Range-63, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfs7296K Assessee By : Sh. Vikas Katyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Katyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167 , Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (sup…

DCIT CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Eversendai Construction Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 965/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.965/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eversendai Construction Private Limited, No. 1 & 2, The Lords, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Guindy, Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 032. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacce2174N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 09.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 9 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 41(1)

…pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dug…

Orient Craft Ltd., Delhi vs. Asst. DIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 477/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 477/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Orient Craft Ltd., Vs Asstt. Dit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Cpc, D-28, South Extension, Bangalore Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0068M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167 , Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (sup…

M/S Mahavir Paints and Adhesives Pvt.Ltd, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 20/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Mahavir Paints & V. The Income Tax Officer Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Ward 2(3)(3) 123/760-D, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacm9521B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 20.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has .Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Amount Paid Towards Esic & Epf Of The Employees, Which Amount Being Allowable Both On The Basis Of Interpretation Of The Statute & On The Basis Of The Decision Of The Apex Court In The, Case Of Allom Extrusion 319 Ir 306 (Sc). Pr. Cit Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. & The Allahabad High Court In The Case Of Shagun Foundry Private Limited Vs. Cit ,Ita No. .87 Of 20061 'The Same Be Allowed. 2. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Esic & Epf, Being A Business Expenditure Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Having Been 'Paid Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income, The Same Being An Allowable Business

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view Page 7 of 17 taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Co…

M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd, Hazratganj vs. The ACIT -5, Lucknow New

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supr…

M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd, Hazratgang vs. The ACIT -5, Lucknow New

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supr…

Mr. Shitij Dhawan, Kanpur vs. The Assessing Officer, Special Range

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supr…

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

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

ITA 6/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

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

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

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

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

ITA 2260/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

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

…in pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (Supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 7 ITA No.2260/Mum/202…

M/S. Dpn Spinners P Ltd, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 76/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.76/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjunraj, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Sanat Kumar Raha
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…uance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra); 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipu…

M/S Chennai Citizen Security Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.34/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Chennai Citizen Security Services Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, 12/3, Ii Floor, Jambulingam Street Cpc, Bengaluru. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Pan: Aaecc 4507H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 25.04.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…suance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same areas under: 1. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra); 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipu…

Mayajaal Entertainment Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 372/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Davey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar,JCIT
Section 113Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…ursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dug…