CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd.

242 ITR 114High Court2000#366 most cited

What is CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund or ESI, are deductible under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act if paid before the due date for filing the return of income, even if paid after the due date specified in the respective welfare fund statute.

238

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. · 242 ITR 114 · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · employee contribution deduction · provident fund · ESI · payment due date · return filing date · welfare fund

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 36(1)section 43section 36india

Judgments citing CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd.

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Jao Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

ITA 64/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Batps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Jao-Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ed by the decisions of the following Hon'ble High courts, amongst several others :- (i) CIT v/s Merchem Ltd. [2015]378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT v/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170(Guj.) (iii) CIT v/s South India Corporation Ltd.(2000) 242 ITR 114(Ker) 6 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Vs. DCIT, CPC, JAO-ITO, Bhatapara (iv) CIT v/s GTN Textiles Ltd.(2004)269 ITR 282(Ker) (v) CIT v/s Jairam & Sons [2004]269 ITR 285(Ker) 5.6 It is pertinent to note that in view of such conflicting decisions, the Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, which reads as under • "In section 36 of the Income-tax Act, i…

Cochin Port Authority ( Formerly Cochin Port Trust), Kochi vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 655/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 263Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ith, nothing to exhibit any consideration of the matter by the AO. Further, the consistent stand by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the matter is to the contrary. And toward which we may cite some decisions, as in CIT v. South India Corporation[2000] 242 ITR 114 (Ker); CIT v. Merchem[2015] 378 ITR 443 (Ker) and Popular Vehicles& Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 406 ITR 150 (Ker).Coming to the decision in Kerala State Warehousing Corporation (supra), the same, as its reading (PB page 29-30) shows, is qua sec.43B, which is only in respect of employers’ contribution, deductible u/s. 36(1)(iv). Again, even i…

M/S Sreelekshmi Cashew Company, Kollam vs. The ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 879/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysreelekshmi Cashew Company The Income Tax Officer Lekshmi Prabha, Kadappakkada Ward - 1 & Tps, Kollam Vs. Kollam 691008 [Pan:Aazfs1211Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri T.V. Hariharan, Ca Respondent By: Dr. Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.V. Hariharan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Aby T.Varkey, Judicial Member Sreelekshmi Cashew Company The Income Tax Officer Lekshmi Prabha, Kadappakkada Ward - 1 & TPS, Kollam vs. Kollam 691008 [PAN:AAZFS1211Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri T.V. Hariharan, CA Respondent by: Dr. Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 16.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 12.06.2023 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 04.02.2022 by th…

Sh. Amrik Singh Garewal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 543/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A.D. Jainआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 543/Chd/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Amrik Singh Garewal, Dcit, Cpc, Bangluru बनाम 223-224, Ind Area Phasae-1, Current Jao, Dcit, Chandigarh 160028 Circle-1,Chandigarh

For Appellant: Sh. None (submissions of Sh. Neeraj Jain)For Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs C…

M/S Basant Mechanical Works, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Circle IV, Ludhiana

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

ITA 541/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jainआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 541/Chd/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S Basant Mechanical Works, 1. Dcit, Cpc, बनाम 720-21, Ind. Area-B, Banglore Ludhiana, Punjab 2. Jurisdiction Ao- 141003 Jcit, Circle Iv, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabfb0687M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kaura, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs C…

Enmas India Private Limited, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 714/CHNY/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.714/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020 -21 M/S. Enmas India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Sp 107, Eom Square Ambattur, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Indl. Estate S.O., Tiruvallur, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Tamil Nadu 600 058. [Pan:Aabce4825F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. & Shri Sriraj Gokavarapu, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 16.12.2020 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.4,77,23,830/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

M/S Bab Leather Products International, Thirumudivakkam vs. DCIT, Chenai

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

ITA 665/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.665/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Bab Leather Products The Deputy Commissioner Of International, 162/163, Sidco Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 044. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafb6228M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 28.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 23.09.2015 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.54,09,150/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 43B

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

Kalpanadevi, Pondicherry vs. ADIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 664/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.664/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalpanadevi, The Assistant Director Of 34, Koil Mania Street, Vs. Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Pondicherry 605 009. Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Csjpk5198N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 10.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.14,89,000/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 43B

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

M/S Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Circle 4 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 649/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.649/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Represented By Its Managing Income Tax, Director, No. 2/87, Raghaava Nagar, Corporate Circle 4(1), 7Th Street, Moovarasampet, Chennai Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [Pan:Aagcm1970L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. James Victor Rajkumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 25.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Eight Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A 2

For Appellant: Shri P. James Victor RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

Natural Selections, Baddi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

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

ITA 404/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 404/Chd/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Natural Selections The Dcit, Cpc, बनाम Plot No. 87, Industrial Area, Banglore / Lodimajra, Tehsil Nalagarh Ito, Baddi (Now Baddi)- 174101 Himachal Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajfn0037D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Akashdeep, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs C…

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

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

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

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

Danish Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 257/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 257/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 ITO, cuke Danish Private Limited F-680, Sitapura Industrial Area, Vs. Ward-6(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCD0834B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

Prahlad Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 232/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Miss Shivangi Samdhani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 232/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 Deputy cuke Prahlad Narayan Bairwa Commissioner of 70, Dev Nagar-B, Opp-Sanganer Vs. Income Tax, Railway Station, Jaipur. Circle-7, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEVPB 5881P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Miss Shiv…

Srm Sweets and Cakes, Erode vs. ADIT-CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 545/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 5

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

Riflex Industries Private Limited, Chennai vs. CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 536/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

Ideal Beach Resort, Neelankarai vs. The Assesing Officer, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 531/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

Spr Construction Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 520/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 25Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

R.Ramakrishnan, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Bengaluru

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

ITA 513/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

M/S Autotech Industries [ India ] Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 500/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…