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.

Smt. Manju Jindal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ludhiana

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

ITA 349/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 348 To 350/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The Cpc, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acvpj3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 36Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 348 to 350/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 to 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The CPC, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACVPJ3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT सुनवाई क" तार$ख/Date…

Smt. Manju Jindal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ludhiana

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

ITA 348/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 348 To 350/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The Cpc, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acvpj3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 36Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 348 to 350/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 to 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The CPC, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACVPJ3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT सुनवाई क" तार$ख/Date…

Abhinav Impex, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

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

ITA 368/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Date Of Filing The Return Of Income Under Income Tax Act, 1961. In So Far As The Income-Tax Act Is Concerned, The Assesse Can Get The Benefit If The Actual Payment Is Made Before The Return Is Filed. The Employee Share For Epf Is Rs. 1,17,494/-And Esi Is Rs. 45,993/-.

For Appellant: None(Written Submission)For Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(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…

M/S Globe Precision Industries Pvt. Ltd., Solan vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle, Parwanoo

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

ITA 342/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jan 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 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 Jabo Majro Co-Operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd., Malerkotla vs. ITO, Malerkotla

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

ITA 361/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, 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…

Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 6 (1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 341/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(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…

B.L Educational Society, Solan vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO(Exemption) Ward, Solan

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

ITA 313/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 313/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 B.L. Educational Society, The Dcit, बनाम The Mall, Cpc, Bengaluru, Solan Karnataka "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaab0547L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “SMC”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 313/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 B.L. Educational Society, The DCIT, बनाम The Mall, CPC, Bengaluru, Solan Karnataka "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAAAB0547L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vishal Mohan, Advocate राज"व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तार%ख/Date of Hearin…

Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO-Ward-1(5), Ludhiana

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

ITA 297/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 297/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “SMC”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 297/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sh. Gurdeep Singh, The ITO, बनाम E-544, Phase VI, Ward 1(5), Focal Point, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141006 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AIPSS7056P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Navneet Sehgal, CA राज"व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तार%ख/D…

Vtc Transport Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CPC/Jcitosd, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 278/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(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…

M/S J.K.International, Kangra vs. ACIT, Circle, Palampur

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

ITA 301/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri. J.S. Bhasin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B(1)(b)

…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 vs…

M/S Amit Engineers, Baddi vs. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

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

ITA 299/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 299/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-2020 I) M/S Amit Engineers, The Dcit बनाम Villagae Judi Kalan, Circle, Parwanoo, H.P. Baddi, District, Solan & Ii) Himachal Pradesh - 173205 Adit, Cpc, Banglore "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakfa5620L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “ए”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 299/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-2020 i) M/s Amit Engineers, The DCIT बनाम Villagae Judi Kalan, Circle, Parwanoo, H.P. Baddi, District, Solan, & ii) Himachal Pradesh - 173205 ADIT, CPC, Banglore "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAKFA5620L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri B.M. Monga, Advocate Shri Rohit Kaura, Adv…

Sh. Jasdev Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO-Ward-5(5), Chandigarh

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

ITA 214/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 214/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Jasdev Singh, The Ito, बनाम 234, Sector 46A Ward 5(5), Chandigarh 160046 Chandigarh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “ए”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 214/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Jasdev Singh, The ITO, बनाम 234, Sector 46A Ward 5(5), Chandigarh 160046 Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAHDPS4550P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, CA राज"व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तार%ख/Date of Hearing : 13.12.20…

M/S Continental Engineering & Power Pvt.Ltd., Mohali vs. ADIT, CPC/ACIT, Circle-6(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 212/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Anil Batra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, 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…

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 403/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT
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 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) without any saving clause would mean that the provisions were n…

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 402/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT
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 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) without any saving clause would mean that the provisions were n…

Sh. Sankanwar Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO-Ward-VI(3), Ludhiana

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

ITA 294/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 294/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sankanwar Singh, The Assessing Officer, बनाम 9161, Urban Estate, Phase-Ii, Ward Vi(3), Dugri, Ludhiana 141002 Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Fbips7094N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “SMC”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 294/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sankanwar Singh, The Assessing Officer, बनाम 9161, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Ward VI(3), Dugri, Ludhiana 141002 Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FBIPS7094N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Navneet Sehgal, CA राज"व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क…

Sh. Rajinder Kumar Saini, Baddi vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO, Baddi

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

ITA 291/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Itr As Per Challans Submitted Before Cit(A) & Several Judicial Pronouncements Are In Favour Of The Assessee. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds As May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 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 vs…

Sh. Rajinder Kumar Saini, Baddi vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO, Baddi

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

ITA 290/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Itr As Per Challans Submitted Before Cit(A) & Several Judicial Pronouncements Are In Favour Of The Assessee. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds As May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 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 vs…

Radiant Industries, Ludhiana vs. ITO-Ward-5(3), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 296/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Furnishing The Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. When The Matter Was Taken To The Ld. Cit(A) The Said Disallowance Was Sustained.

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…ITA No. 296-Chd-2021 Radiant Industries, Ludhiana 2 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1083027/- on account of late deposit of Employees Contribution to ESI and EPF on the basis of conjectures, surmises and without appreciating the facts of the case and the provisions of the Act as applicable during the financial year relevant to the assessment year and on date of filing of Income Tax Return. The addition merits deletion. 3. That the action of the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1083027/-on ac…

Nikhil Mohine, Parasia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ITA Nos. 37& 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19& 2019-20) Nikhil Mohinev. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (SMC) (through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 37&38/Jab/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19& 2019-20 Nikhil Mohine, Deputy Commissioner of vs. Income Tax, Ward No. 11, CPC, Income Tax Department, 128,Gandhi Ward, Bengaluru, Karnataka -560500 Parasia, Chhindwara, Chhindwara(M.P.)-480441 [PAN: AUMPM9207F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. JancyBiju , Advocate Respondent by Sh.S.K.Halder, DR Date of hearing 26/10/2021 Da…