CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd.

356 ITR 351High Court2013#3964 most cited

What is CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd. authority for?

Deductions for employer and employee contributions to PF and ESI are covered by Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Amendments made to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 are prospective, not retrospective.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd. · section 43B · section 36(1)(va) · PF · ESI · deduction · employer contribution · employee contribution · Finance Act 2021 · prospective amendment

Also reported as

43 Taxmann 396

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 2(24)section 43bsection 36(1)section 43section 36section 139prescribedsection 143(3)nfacbusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd.

M/S VARSHA CONSTRUCTION,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 5/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Varsha Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Second Floor-25, 26, Millenium Plaza, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Raipur-492 001, Chhattisgarh Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G.. Pan: Aaefv 8399 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…tries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) vi. CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) vii. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) viii. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) ix. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as employees contribution to PF and ESI, as both are covered u/s 43B of the Act. 11. Before parting qua the aforesaid issue in hand, we think it apt to deal with the scope of applic…

THE SHAHABAD COOP. SUGAR MILLS,SHAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KURUKSHETRA

The appeal is disposed off accordingly as aforesaid

ITA 1491/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Varun Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 250(6)Section 253Section 36(1)(VA)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "ाियक सद" BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 1491/Chd/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Shahabad Co-op. Sugar Mills बनाम The ACIT Ltd. Circle, Kurukshetra Ladwa Road, Shahabad(M) Distt. Kurukshetra, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAAAT0381N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Varun Gupta, Advocate राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by…

JOSEPH LESLIE & COMPANY LLP,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG

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

ITA 297/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Joseph Leslie & Company Llp, Circle 22(1), 3Rd Floor, Leslico House, Piramal Chamber, Vs. Bhavani Shankar Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aahfj 7149 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 2Section 36Section 43B

…ed Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate various judicial pronouncement including CIT Vs GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749) (Bombay HC) Ozer Merchant Co Operative Bank vs Department Of Income Tax (ITAT Pune) CIT Vs Kiccha Sugar Ltd (356 ITR 351) Uttarakhand HC 4. Without prejudice to above Assessee has sufficient bought forward loss to be set off against additions made. 5. Assessee hereby prays to drop the addition made on account of Delayed Payment of PF & ESIC however paid before filing of income tax return. B. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify above…

K M AUTOMOBILES,KORBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, KORBA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 100/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 100/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 K M Automobiles Plot No.187, Transport Nagar, Korba, Chhatisgarh-495 677 Pan: Aanfk0386L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…ers, of the Supreme Court in CIT v Alom Extrusions (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), Karnataka High Court decision in CIT v Sabari Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (KAR), CIT v Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd (2014) 266 CTR 241(Kar), CIT v Kichaa Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351, CIT v Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 163 (Rajasthan) and Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd v CIT (2016) 71 taxmann.com 247 (Pat). 1.3. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in interpreting the amendments made in section 36(1)(va) of the Act vide the Finance Act 2021 as retrospective in nature. The learned CIT(A) NFAC h…

M/S NEO TECH ENGINEERING,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 88/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Y.K Mishra, AR- for Sl. No.1, 2, 7 & 8For Respondent: S/Shri G.N Singh, DR & P.K Mishra, DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…tries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) vi. CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) vii. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) viii. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) ix. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as employees contribution to PF and ESI, as both are covered u/s 43B of the Act. 11. Before parting qua the aforesaid issue in hand, we think it apt to deal with the scope of appli…

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

…sports 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) CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) (viii) Sagun Foundry (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2017] 78 com47 (Allahabad) (ix) Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 393 ITR 386 (Patna) 10 M/s. Dolcas Botanosys Pvt. Ltd. vs ADIT, CPC, Banglore/ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur 11. It may be also worthwhile to submit that CBDT Circular No. 10 / DV / 2013 dated 16.12.2013 in the m…

MITHILA AND MITHILA ENTERPRISE,NEW DELHI vs. WARD- 49(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1906/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…i HC); (b) CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi HC); (c) ACIT Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2012) 20 taxmann.com 334 (Del.); (d) Universal Precision Screws Vs. ACIT (2016) 69 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi Trib.); (e) CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand); (f) CIT Vs. Nuchem Ltd. (2015) 59 taxmann.com 455 (P & H); (g) CIT Vs. ANZ Information Technology (P.) Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 123 (Kar.); (h) H. P. Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 508 (H. P.); (i) Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); (j) Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Lt…

MITHILA AND MITHILA ENTERPRISE,NEW DELHI vs. WARD- 49(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1905/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…i HC); (b) CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi HC); (c) ACIT Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2012) 20 taxmann.com 334 (Del.); (d) Universal Precision Screws Vs. ACIT (2016) 69 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi Trib.); (e) CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand); (f) CIT Vs. Nuchem Ltd. (2015) 59 taxmann.com 455 (P & H); (g) CIT Vs. ANZ Information Technology (P.) Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 123 (Kar.); (h) H. P. Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 508 (H. P.); (i) Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); (j) Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Lt…

MITHILA AND MITHILA ENTERPRISE,DELHI vs. WARD 49(4) DELHI , DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1904/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…i HC); (b) CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi HC); (c) ACIT Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2012) 20 taxmann.com 334 (Del.); (d) Universal Precision Screws Vs. ACIT (2016) 69 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi Trib.); (e) CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand); (f) CIT Vs. Nuchem Ltd. (2015) 59 taxmann.com 455 (P & H); (g) CIT Vs. ANZ Information Technology (P.) Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 123 (Kar.); (h) H. P. Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 508 (H. P.); (i) Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); (j) Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Lt…

M/S IND SYNERGY LIMITED,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 312/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 312/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ind Synergy Limited Gokul Puram, Kachna Road, Khamardih, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaaci7072D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Mahawar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shravankumar Meena, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shravankumar Meena, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

…to Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) g. EssaeTeraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) h. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) i. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as employees contribution to PF and ESI, as both are covered u/s 43B of the Act. 11. Before parting qua the aforesaid issue in hand, we think it apt to deal with the scope of appli…

VAAHO AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 ( 1 ) , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee related all grounds of ITA No

ITA 30/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenash. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…o Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) g. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) h. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) i. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as employees contribution to PF and ESI as both are covered u/s 43B of the Act. 7. Now, we shall take up the claim of the department that the amendments made available on the st…

J.M.C PLYWOOD,GORAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, PHAGWARA

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 4/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…o Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) g. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) h. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) i. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as employees contribution to PF and ESI as both are covered u/s 43B of the Act. 7. Now, we shall take up the claim of the department that the amendments made available on the st…

M/S DIAMOND RED TANNERIES,KAPURTHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 21/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…o Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) g. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) h. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) i. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as employees contribution to PF and ESI as both are covered u/s 43B of the Act. 7. Now, we shall take up the claim of the department that the amendments made available on the st…

KHALSA BAKERY ,KAPUTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4 (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 20/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…o Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) g. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) h. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) i. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as employees contribution to PF and ESI as both are covered u/s 43B of the Act. 7. Now, we shall take up the claim of the department that the amendments made available on the st…

KHIMJI K.D. SONS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 269/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.269/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Khimji K.D. Sons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Plot No.621/A, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pin-751007 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabck 3660 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Bivek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e Patil Transport Limited – 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) (iii) CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. – 321 ITR 508 (Del.) (iv) Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd vs CIT – 215 Taxman 597 (Kar.) (v) CIT vs. Raj Agro Industries Ltd. – 334 ITR 122 (P&H) o (vi) CIT vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. – 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) (vii) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. – 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) 6 6. In following decisions, the Hon’ble High Courts strictly interpreted section 36(1) (va) in favour of the revenue and denied deduction : (i) Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd vs. CIT – [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13 (Ker.) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road…

MILIND GUPTA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is partly

ITA 382/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Jagabandhu Sahu/Goutam Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…l.) P a g e 2 | 11 ITA Nos. 382 & 383/CTK/2017 Asse ssment Years : 2 031 -14 & 20 14- 15 (iv) Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd vs CIT – 215 Taxman 597 (Kar.) (v) CIT vs. Raj Agro Industries Ltd. – 334 ITR 122 (P&H) o (vi) CIT vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. – 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) o (vii) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. – 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) 6. In following decisions, the Hon’ble High Courts strictly interpreted section 36(1) (va) in favour of the revenue and denied deduction : (i) Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd vs. CIT – [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13 (Ker.) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Ro…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BHARAT HEAVY PLATE & VESSEL LIMITTED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 457/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Bharat Heavy Plate & Circle 1(1) Vessels Ltd. Visakhapatnam D.No.10-3, Administrative Building Natayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaacb7076N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : None सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Malik, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Bharat Heavy Plate & Circle 1(1) Vessels Ltd. Visakhapatnam D.No.10-3, Administrative Building Natayyapalem Visakhapatnam [PAN :AAACB7076N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant…

HERRENKNECHT INDIA P.LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CIR 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

…j.) (HC)] x. CIT v. Mark Auto Industries Ltd. [(2014) 358 ITR 43 (P&H)] xi. CIT v. Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd[(2014) 266 CTR 241 (KRN.)(HC)] xii. CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd.[ (2014) 43 taxmann.com 396 (Cal.)(HC)] xiii. CIT v. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. [(2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand)] CIT vis. ANZ Information Technology (P) Ltd. {(2009) 318 ITR xiv. 123 (Karn)} xv. CIT v. Aimil Ltd.[(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del)] In a later decision, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 0421 (Raj.) held as under:- “41. As regards the substantial question framed…

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)

…fter the due date under the respective Act but before filing of the return of income u/s.139(1) cannot be disallowed u/s.43B, or u/s.36(1)(v)(a) of the IT.Act. Similar views were taken by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd. 43 Taxmann 396, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT. Vs. 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,…

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)

…fter the due date under the respective Act but before filing of the return of income u/s.139(1) cannot be disallowed u/s.43B, or u/s.36(1)(v)(a) of the IT.Act. Similar views were taken by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd. 43 Taxmann 396, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT. Vs. 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,…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd. (356 ITR 351) — Cited in 30 Judgments | BharatTax