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 367,154 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.

M/S Shubham Biz Facility Management P Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Cir -10, Pune

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

ITA 661/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

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

…p before this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai (supra) wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted herein under :- “4. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on merits. 5.…

Taiyo Nippon Sanso I P Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 658/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

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

…p before this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai (supra) wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted herein under :- “4. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on merits. 5.…

Santosh Bhaisaheb Khaire, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 655/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

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

…p before this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai (supra) wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted herein under :- “4. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on merits. 5.…

Rahul Paraji Arote, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 642/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

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

…p before this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai (supra) wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted herein under :- “4. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on merits. 5.…

Rahul Paraji Arote, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 641/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

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

…p before this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai (supra) wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted herein under :- “4. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on merits. 5.…

Pravin Masalewale, Pune vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC, CPC Bengaluru

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

ITA 638/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

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

…p before this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai (supra) wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted herein under :- “4. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on merits. 5.…

Sai Service Agency(B0Mbay) P Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -8, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 490/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmashaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.490/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sai Service Agency (Bombay) The Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mumbai Pune Road, . Phugewadi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs 5991 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepa Khare – Adv. Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune- 8’S Order Dated 05.08.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Dcitc Cir-1(2)/202/18-19/188, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80A(5)Section 80CSection 80G

…deduction under section 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed under section 139 of the Act. Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh high court in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date of filing Return of Income. 3. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, IT APPEAL No’s.1002 & 1034 of 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2014 als…

Sunil Ambadas Kadam, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

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

ITA 141/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

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

…p before this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai (supra) wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted herein under :- “4. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on merits. 5.…

Sathiapal Engineers (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 610/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 610/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Sathiapal Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner Formerly Known As Sathiapal Vs. Of Income Tax, Engineers India Ltd., New No. 14, Cpc, Bengaluru. Old No. 25, Temple Street, Alagappa Nagar, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aahcs2295P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 26.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Payments.

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(v)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…

Sona Fashions Inc, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1217/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Memberassessment Year: 2018-19 Sona Fashions Inc. Vs. Ito, H 9, Mohan Coop. Industrial Ward-29(5), Estate, B1, Mathura Road, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi Pan :Aacfs7353L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 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…

Shri Indhira Cottons Mills P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 563/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./ I. T. A. No.563/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S. Shri Indhira Cotton Mills P.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P.B No.6 , Jagampet Gardens, Income Tax, Cpc, Chitlapakkam Main Road, Chrompet, Bengaluru. Chennai-600 044. Pan: Aaaci 0899J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 25.08.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 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 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. Udaipur Dug…

Mansoor Aiyaz Ebrahim, Chennai vs. Assistant Dirctor of Incometax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 622/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y paid 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. NispoPolyfabriks [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 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Mansoor Aiyaz Ebrahim, Chennai vs. Assistant Dirctor of Incometax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 621/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y paid 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. NispoPolyfabriks [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 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Tonglit Autogistic Private Limited, Chennai vs. Asst Director of It, CPC Income Tax Department, Banglore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 566/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh. S (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y paid 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. NispoPolyfabriks [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 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Moral Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3, Lucknow-New/DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 136/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 44A

…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 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. I.T.A. No.136/Lkw/2022 Assessment year: 2018-19 7 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 T…

Babian Inn, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 85/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow04 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

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

Section 143(1)(a)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 Transport Corporation (supra)…

Ravi Sopan Agarkar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.652/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ravi Sopan Agarkar, The Income Tax Officer, Near Zp School, Agarwadi, Vs Ward-8(1), Pune. Chakan, Tal. Khed, Pune-410501. Pan: Ajtpa 7236 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri M.K.Kulkarani – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Dated 26.10.2021. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Nfac-Delhi Was Not Justified In Disallowing Contribution Made To Epf Under S. 36(1)(Va) Holding That The Amended Law Applied W.E.F. 01-4-2021 Being Clarificatory & Retrospective Amendment. In View Of This The New Law Was Applicable & As The Contribution Received From Employee Was Not Credited Before Due Date Of The Parent Act. There Is No Retrospective Effect To The Amendment. It Be Held Accordingly. 2) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Nfac Has Wrongly Held That The Amended Law Applied W.E.F. 1-4- 2021 Was Clarificatory Nature & Applied All Pending Assessments Also. The Inserted Explanation 2 To Clause (Va) Of Sub-Section (1) To Clarify That Provisions Of Section 43B Shall Not Apply & Shall Be

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…uction under section 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed under section 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date of filing Return of Income. 5. Also, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, IT APPEAL No’s.1002 & 1034 of 2012 vide order dated…

Rajan Banquet Pvt.Ltd., Moradabad vs. ACIT-1, Moradabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1427/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 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. 8 | P a g e AY: 2020-21 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 T…

M/S.Kerala State Warehousing Corpn, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

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

ITA 389/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 42

…, the High Courts have held that payments of Employees share of PF collected if made before the date of filing of return is sufficient compliance of section 43B of the Income Tax Act. 6 M/s. Kerala State Warehousing Corporation  CIT Vs Nipro Poly Fabrics Ltd 350 ITR 327 (Himachal He).  CIT Vs AIMIL Ltd (Del) 3211TR 508  CIT Vs Kichha Sugar Company Ltd (Uttarakhand He).  CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (Rajasthan High Court)  CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises - 298 ITR 141 (Kar He)  CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd - Cal HC l) Ground No 3 is that the Ld. PCIT erred in appreciating the fact that the return filed by the…

Trutech Constructions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1913/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 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…