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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.?

425 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (350 ITR 327), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(1), Section 154, Section 2(24)(x), Section 36(1)(va), Section 43B.

CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (350 ITR 327)

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 403/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT

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

…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…

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 402/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT

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

…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…

Laurels (India) Impex (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Bengluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 938/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Laurels (India) Impex (P) Ltd. Vs Adit Rra Taxindia D-28, South Extension, Bengaluru, Part-1, New Delhi Karnataka Aaacs9311B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shrey Jain, Adv Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021

Section 143(1)Section 2(23)(x)

…43/- on account of late deposition of Employees Contribution of Provident Fund and ESI which as per 4 the judicial pronouncement rendered in the case of CIT Vs. A & Z Information Technology Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka), CIT Vs. Metropolio Fabrics Ltd. 350 ITR 327 (HP) and the judgment from Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd.229 CTR 448 are allowable to buttress the contention that the such contribution is allowable if the same is paid before the due date of filing of the return. 8. I find that under the identical facts the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Pro Inter…

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

…ecisi on of the jurisdict ional Hi gh C ourt ref erred t o by the assessee in th e specific ground No. 2 rais ed in the present appeal wh erein th e decision of the Hon'bl e Himachal Pradesh Hi gh Co urt in th e case of CIT vs Nipso Pol yfabr ika Ltd. [2 013] 350 ITR 327 h as been reli ed upon. The said decisi on, it is seen, specificall y deals with th e employees’ c ontri buti on. Th ei r Lordshi ps relyin g upon decisi on of the Apex Court in the case of CI T V s Al om Extrusions Ltd. (20 09) 319 ITR 3 06 (which was in the con text of empl oyers ’ contribution) referring to th e de ci sion of the Hon'bl e Delh…

Ssurya Resorts Private Limited, Dharamshala vs. DCIT, CPC/ACIT, Circle, Palampur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income Under Section 139(1), Hence It Is An Allowable Expenditure As Per The Judgment Of Honorable Sc In The Case Of Pr. Cit Vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 84 Taxmnn.Com 185

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 43B

…efer to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court referre d to by the assessee in the specific ground No. 2 raised in the present appeal wherein the decision of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs Nipso Polyfabrika Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327 has been relied upon. The said decision, it is seen, specifically deals with the e mployees’ contribution. Their Lordships relying upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (which was in the context of employers’ contribution) referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the c…

Bevel Gears (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 376/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Gururaj Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e assessee on similar issues are as under: 2 ITA No.376/Bang/2021. M/s.Bevel Gears (India) Pvt.Ltd. d. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) e. CIT v. Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (ITA No.50 of 2009) (Uttarakhand HC). f. CIT v. Nipso Plyfabrics Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) g CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj) h CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. (2013) 37 taxmann.com 160 (P&H) where it was held that even though the payment to specified fund was made after the due date under the said acts the payment to specified funds is allowable expenditure if they are paid w…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Indo Shell Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1882/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Indo Shell Automative Corporate Circle-1, Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Coimbatore. A-9, Sidco Industrial Estate, Kurichi,Coimbatore-641 021. Pan: Aabci 3140D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Arjunraj, C.A for ""

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(va)

…ourt in the case of M/s.Essae Teraoka Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (246 CTR 286) and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Fabriks Ltd. (350 ITR 327). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 250 Taxmann 16 has considered an identical issue while dismissing SLP filed by the Revenue and held that amount claimed on payment of PF & ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disall…

Shri B. Purushothaman, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 200/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 200/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri B. Purushothaman, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 12, Redhills Road, Kolathur, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 099. Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Ahipp9984F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai Dated 28.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The First Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Employee’S Contribution Amount To ₹.21,77,123/- Towards Epf.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

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

…the case of M/s Essae Teraoka Pvt Ltd. vs. DCIT [246 CTR 286], Rajasthan High Court on CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70, CIT vs. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [(2014) (5) TMI 222], Bombay High Court in CIT vs Nipso Fabriks Ltd. [350 ITR 327] etc. 5 I.T.A. No. 200/Chny/20 5.3 Moreover, in a recent decision in the case of PCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. Reported in [2017] 250 Taxman 16/84 taxmann.com 185(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filing of retur…

Parasol Laboratories India Pvt.Ldt, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Chandigrh

ITA 60/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date As Per The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…Ltd. 3 date of filing of return of income, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have set aside the action of the AO. The ld. counsel further relied on the following judgements to substantiate the contention of the assessee: - i) CIT vs M/s Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327 IT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd., 185 Taxman 416(SC) ii) CIT vs Solar Exports, 27 Taxman.com 289 (SC) iii) CIT vs Lakhani Rubber Works, 188 Taxman 132 (P&H) iv) CIT vs Rai Agro Industries Ltd (2011) 334 ITR 122 (9&H) v) CIT Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills Pvt Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) vi) CIT vs Mark Auto Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) vii) CIT v…

ACIT, Corp Cir-2, Coimbatore vs. Indsil Hydro Power & Manganese Ltd, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3491/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3491/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Indsil Hydro Power & Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Vs. Manganese Ltd., “Indsil House”, No. 63, Race Course Road, T V Samy Road (West), Coimbatore 641 018. R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. [Pan: Aaaci4918G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Arjun Raj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 04.08.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

Section 2(24)(vd)Section 28Section 43B

…the case of M/s Essae Teraoka Pvt Ltd. vs. DCIT [246 CTR 286], Rajasthan High Court on CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70, CIT vs. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [(2014) (5) TMI 222], Bombay High Court in CIT vs Nipso Fabriks Ltd. [350 ITR 327] etc. 6.2 Further, in a recent decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. Reported in [2017] 250 Taxman 16/84 taxmann.com 185(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filing of r…

Drs Dilip Roadlines Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Secunderabad vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1212/HYD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 (Through Video Conference) Drs Dilip Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 17(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aadcd 1865 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvindakshan RS

…remitted before due date of filing of return as provided u/s 139(1) is allowable as deduction u/s 43B of the Act. In support of such contention, ld. AR relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of CIT Vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd., 350 ITR 327 and the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs. Savari Enterprises 298 ITR 141. He therefore submitted that the view taken by ld. CIT(A) being in terms with the decisions of the Hon’ble High courts, the order of ld. CIT(A) on the issue should not be disturbed. DRS Dilip Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 16. We have heard the parti…

M/S. Axis Motors Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 289/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…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 I.T.A. No.289/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 5 IncomeTax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 2.1 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 Transport Corporation (supra…

Frigorifico Allana Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 925/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Apurva R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)

…very same issue of the cases, CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2005] 279 ITR 331 (Gujarat-HC), CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karnataka-HC) and CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bombay-HC) 5 CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327 (Himachal Pradesh-HC), Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20 (Karnataka-HC), CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616 (Rajasthan-HC) and CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160 (Punjab & Haryana-HC) and finally concluded that if it was deposited before the du…

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd (Formerly Knows As M/S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd), Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 651/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 650 & 651/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd., Tax, Vs. (Formerly Known As M/S. Orchid Central Circle – 1(1), Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,) Chennai . 313, Orchid Towers, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco 0402B] (&'यथ(/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…(2010) (321 ITR 508) (Delhi) ii. Rajasthan High Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) (265 CTR 471) (Rajasthan) iii. Uttarakand High Court in Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd (2013) (356 ITR 327) iv. Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd (2013) (350 ITR 327) v. Bombay High Court in Ghatge Patil Transports (2014) (368 ITR 749) (Bombay) With regard to the disallowance made u/s. 14A, relying on this tribunal decision in the case of ACIT vs M. Baskaran ITA No. 1717/Mds/2013 for assessment year 2009-10, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed these appeals. :-3-: ITA Nos. 650…

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd (Formerly Knows As M/S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd), Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 650/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 650 & 651/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd., Tax, Vs. (Formerly Known As M/S. Orchid Central Circle – 1(1), Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,) Chennai . 313, Orchid Towers, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco 0402B] (&'यथ(/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…(2010) (321 ITR 508) (Delhi) ii. Rajasthan High Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) (265 CTR 471) (Rajasthan) iii. Uttarakand High Court in Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd (2013) (356 ITR 327) iv. Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd (2013) (350 ITR 327) v. Bombay High Court in Ghatge Patil Transports (2014) (368 ITR 749) (Bombay) With regard to the disallowance made u/s. 14A, relying on this tribunal decision in the case of ACIT vs M. Baskaran ITA No. 1717/Mds/2013 for assessment year 2009-10, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed these appeals. :-3-: ITA Nos. 650…

Annapurna Studios Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Hyderabad

In the result, as pronounced in the open court, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1290/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen, DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…an be made. In the case of VBC Industries Ltd., (supra) also the Tribunal has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd., [350 ITR 327] and held that the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd., (supra) is one possible view of the matter and hence, no disallowance is called for in the circumstances of the case. In consonance with the view taken, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO u/s. 36(1)(va) deserves to be deleted and we direct accordi…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Granules India Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1282/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen, DR

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

…n be made. In the case of VBC Industries Ltd., (supra) also the Tribunal has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradsesh High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd., [350 ITR 327] and held that the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd., (supra) is one possible view of the matter and hence, no disallowance is called for in the circumstances of the case. In consonance with the view taken, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO u/s. 36(1)(va) deserves to be deleted and we direct accordi…

ACIT, Circle -1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 439/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

…s. Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 328, CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. & Others (321 ITR 508), the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nexus Computer Pvt. Ltd. 313 ITR 144 & the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nipso Poly fabric Pvt. Ltd.(350 ITR 327 HP). The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, Pune & Chennai have taken similar views. In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, it is held that the assessee would be entitled for deduction of the employees contribution of PF & ESI made before the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act. In the light of the above…

ACIT, Circle -1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 438/VIZ/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

…s. Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 328, CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. & Others (321 ITR 508), the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nexus Computer Pvt. Ltd. 313 ITR 144 & the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nipso Poly fabric Pvt. Ltd.(350 ITR 327 HP). The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, Pune & Chennai have taken similar views. In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, it is held that the assessee would be entitled for deduction of the employees contribution of PF & ESI made before the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act. In the light of the above…

Bharat Heavy Plate & Vessels Limited, Now Known As Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (Hpvp Unit), Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 406/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

…s. Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 328, CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. & Others (321 ITR 508), the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nexus Computer Pvt. Ltd. 313 ITR 144 & the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nipso Poly fabric Pvt. Ltd.(350 ITR 327 HP). The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, Pune & Chennai have taken similar views. In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, it is held that the assessee would be entitled for deduction of the employees contribution of PF & ESI made before the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act. In the light of the above…

CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Laurels (India) Impex (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Bengluru

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

Ssurya Resorts Private Limited, Dharamshala vs. DCIT, CPC/ACIT, Circle, Palampur

Bevel Gears (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Indo Shell Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

Shri B. Purushothaman, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

Parasol Laboratories India Pvt.Ldt, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Chandigrh

ACIT, Corp Cir-2, Coimbatore vs. Indsil Hydro Power & Manganese Ltd, Coimbatore

Drs Dilip Roadlines Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Secunderabad vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

M/S. Axis Motors Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

Frigorifico Allana Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(4), Mumbai

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd (Formerly Knows As M/S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd), Chennai

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd (Formerly Knows As M/S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd), Chennai

Annapurna Studios Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Hyderabad

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Granules India Limited, Hyderabad

ACIT, Circle -1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Ltd, Visakhapatnam

ACIT, Circle -1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Ltd, Visakhapatnam

Bharat Heavy Plate & Vessels Limited, Now Known As Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (Hpvp Unit), Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam