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.

Flourtech Engineers P Ltd, Faridabad vs. Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 67/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Singla, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(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…

Faariha Tyagi, Haryana vs. Ward 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 51/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(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…

Rajesh Kumar, Faridabad vs. Ward 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 41/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Wadhva, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(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…

Connect International Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 30/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Malav Goswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(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…

Connect International Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 29/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Malav Goswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(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…

Multi Max Engineering Work Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle 17(2), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: PendingITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(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 Balaji Aluminium Alloys Private Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1190/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(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…

Amit Singh, Bhiwadi (Alwar) vs. DCIT, CPC- Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” 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. 284/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 DCIT, cuke Amit Singh M/s Amit Travels, A-13 Bhagat Singh Vs. CPC, Bangalore. Colony, Bhiwadi, Tizara, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: CAWPS 4777 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.) jktLo dh…

Transindia Nonwovens Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 267/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri B.P.Mundra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 24Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” 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. 267/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 DCIT, cuke Transindia Nonwovens Private Limited P-47 P-47 Raj Angan Society NRI Colony, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru. Sec. 24, Jaipur, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur 302033. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACF 5802 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assess…

Amba Tech Engineering, Jaipur vs. ITO, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” 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. 243/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 ITO/DCIT, cuke Amba Tech Engineering Shop No. 18, Plot No. D-819, Vs. CPC, RIICO Chowk Bhiwadi. Main Road Harchandpur Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi Tijara, Alwar-301019. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAWFA 2951 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Asse…

Medopharmprivate Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 54/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.54/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Medopharm Private Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 25, Puliyur 2Nd Main Road, Trustpuram, Vs. Income Tax, Cpc, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Aadcm9459R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 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 15.12.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 22.10.2018 Admitting Nil Income. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The Assessment Under 2

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…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 6 I.T.A. No. 54/Chny/22 counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (…

Kitty Industries Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle-III, Ludhiana

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

ITA 30/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Said Disallowance As Confirmed By The Cit(A) Is Against The Judgment Of The Jurisdictional Bench Of The Itat, Chandigarh Bench In The Case Of M/S. Mohan Bakery In Ita No. 273/2021 Pronounced On 02.12.2021 & The Judgment In The Case Of Sirsa Cooperative Marketing-Cum Processing Lc Society, Sirsa In Ita No. 274/2021 Pronounced On 02.12.2021. 3. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Or Alter Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

Sh. Dinkar Khanna, Ludhiana vs. JCIT -1, Circle 1(1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 376/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri. Vipan Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Dwivedi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…velopments 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…

Rajesh Motors Motocorp Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner Circle-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 47/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Godha (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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. 47/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Rajesh Motors Motocorp Private Limited Deputy Commissioner of A-1 Transport Nagar, Agra Road, Vs. Income Tax, Jaipur. Circle-4, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAECA7314G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. G…

M/S Freaking Amazing Foods Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh

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

ITA 11/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Itr.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…evelopments 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…

ITO-Ward-2(1), Ludhiana vs. M/S Glory Knitwears Pvt.Ltd, Ludhiana

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

ITA 327/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Filing Of Return Wherever Employee'S Contribution Is Disallowed For Once & All If Payment Is Delayed Beyond The Prescribed Time.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…evelopments 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…

Atul Global Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 1 (1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 10/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…evelopments 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…

The Etikoppaka Coop Agricultural Industrial Society Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

Asian Industries, Solan vs. ITO, Ward, Baddi

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

ITA 8/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

Garg Motors, Sirsa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 378/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…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…