How many judgments cite CIT v. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd.?

66 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd. (288 ITR 366), spanning 2008 to 2022.

CIT v. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd.

288 ITR 366High Court2007#1708 most cited

What is CIT v. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions to specified funds (like PF/ESI) are deductible under section 36(1)(va) even if paid beyond the statutory due dates, provided they are remitted before the due date for filing the income-tax return.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd. · 288 ITR 366 · employee contribution PF ESI · section 36(1)(va) · section 2(24)(x) · section 43B · deductibility of late payment · welfare fund · due date payment · retrospective amendment

Issues it is cited on

specified fund section 158be section 113 section 92f clarificatory amendment retrospective amendment section 158bb section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 2(24)profits and gains of business or profession section 43b

Judgments citing CIT v. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd.

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)

…harma [2008] 297 ITR 320. :- 57 -: 8. Despite the aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel for the Tribunal has contended that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 366 and that of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2008] Taxindiaonline.com 104 (TIOL) the issue requires consideration. According to us, in view of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in the case of Vinay Cement Ltd. (supra) by the Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the lea…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dewan Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5784/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Dewan Sugar Ltd., Circle-10(1), New Delhi Surya Plaza, 1St Floor, K- 185, Sarai Jullena, New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aaacd3465H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 36

…pite the aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel for the Tribunal (sic—Revenue) has contended that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (Mad) 481 : (2007) 288 ITR 366 (Mad) and that of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2008) Taxindiaonline.com 104 (TIOL) the issue requires consideration. According to us, in view of the dismissal of the SLP in the case of Vinay Cement (supra) by the Supreme Court by a speakin…

Brijbasi Art Press Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6165/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi M/S. Brijbasi Art Press Ltd., E- 46/11, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase- Ii, New Delhi Pan :Aaacb0044L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 43B

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AIMIL Limited

ITA-1063/2006HC Delhi23 Dec 2009

Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…rmendra Sharma: 297 ITR 320. 8. Despite the aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel for the Tribunal has contended that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd: (2007)288 ITR 366 and that of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s Pamwi Tissues Ltd: (2008) Taxindiaonline.com 104 (TIOL) the issue requires consideration. According to us, in view of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in the case of Vinay Cement (supra) by the Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of th…

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. P.M.Electronics Ltd

ITA - 475 / 2007HC Delhi03 Nov 2008

Section 1Section 139Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…ITA 475/2007 Page 1 of 8 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + ITA No. 475/2007 % Judgment reserved on: 23.09.2008 Judgment delivered on:03.11.2008 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V ..... APPELLANT Through : Ms Rashmi Chopra, Advocate versus P M ELECTRONICS LTD ..... Respondent Through : Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate CORAM : HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporters or not ?…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. P M Electronics Ltd

ITA/475/2007HC Delhi03 Nov 2008

Section 1Section 139Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B