Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd.

366 ITR 167High Court2014#180 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions to Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance (ESI) are deductible under the Income Tax Act if deposited by the assessee before the due date for filing the return of income, even if such deposits are made after the specific due dates prescribed under the respective PF and ESI Acts.

400

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Hemla Embroidery Mills · CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills · 366 ITR 167 · employee contribution PF ESI · section 36(1)(va) · section 2(24)(x) · section 43B · deductibility · due date return of income · disallowance employee welfare funds · Punjab & Haryana High Court

Issues it is cited on

section 158besection 113section 92fclarificatory amendmentretrospective amendmentsection 158bbsection 36(1)(va)section 2(24)(x)section 43bsection 158bsection 158section 36(1)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd.

Raksha Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 14/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Natrajan (Advocate) & Mrs. RFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nn.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI, whether the due date is as per the respective acts or up to the due date of filing of return of income of the assessee. A…

The Madras Silks India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Tirupur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 134/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nn.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI, whether the due date is as per the respective acts or up to the due date of filing of return of income of the assessee. A…

Vaiyapuri Venkatasubramanian, Thiruppur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 121/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nn.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI, whether the due date is as per the respective acts or up to the due date of filing of return of income of the assessee.…

M/S Imperial Granites Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 104/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nn.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI, whether the due date is as per the respective acts or up to the due date of filing of return of income of the assessee.…

M/S Gbr Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward2(2), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 103/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nn.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI, whether the due date is as per the respective acts or up to the due date of filing of return of income of the assessee. A…

M/S Rane Brake Lining Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 101/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…ann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI, whether the due date is as per the respective acts or up to the due date of filing of return of income of the assessee. A…

Amazing Export Corporation, Palladam vs. DCIT, CPC, Benguluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 100/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nn.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI, whether the due date is as per the respective acts or up to the due date of filing of return of income of the assessee. A…

Rameshwar Rai, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer -2, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 75/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Rameshwar Rai V. The Ito-2 5, Civil Lines Bareilly Opp. Rohila Motel Bareilly Tan/Pan:Afypr0788R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Written Submission By The Assessee. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 5.8.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Id. Cit (Appeals) (Nfac) Has Grossly Erred On Facts & Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3,37,008/- Made By The A.O. On A/C Of Employee'S Contribution Of Esi & P.F. Being Late Payment While It Has Been Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return, After Ignoring The Facts & Law As Laid Down By Hon'Ble Allahabad High Court Which Is A Jurisdictional High Court. 2. While Confirming The Addition The Id. Cit (A) Has Grossly Erred In Applying The Case Laws Of Various High Courts When The Law Laid Down By Jurisdictional High Court Was Already Available & Hon'Ble Supreme Court Had Already Dismissed Slp Filed By Deptt. Against The Order Of Rajasthan High Court. 3. The Addition Further Suffers From An Illegality Wherein The A.O. Has Erred In Making The Adjustments In Returned

For Appellant: Written submission by the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 143Section 234

…ed with the judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) Page 7 of 17 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view…

Ultra Value, Lucknow vs. ITO (1)(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 109/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ultra Value V. The Ito (1)(1) C-1619/12, Rajajipuram Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaefu0694G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 21.9.2021 For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Income Returned Should Have Been Accepted. 2. That Application Filed U/S 154 Should Have Been Accepted. 3. The Addition Made By Learned Lower Court Was Not Within The Preview Of Adjustments Which Could Be Made U/S 143(1)(A). 4. That In The Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case Learned Lower Court Erred In Holding That Amendment Made To Section 36(1)(Va) By Finance Act, 2021 Were Retrospective In Nature. 5. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Made Of Page 2 Of 17

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Seth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ed with the judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) Page 7 of 17 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view…

Jagmini Micro Knit Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 98/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Jagmani Micro Knit Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 2, Sarvodaya Nagar Circle 2(1)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaach3405B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 04 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…gh Court dissented with the judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view…

Dev Darshan Overseas, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ectively. Thus, in view of this legal position as considered by the Co-ordinate Benches and taking note of the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nuchem Limited ITA 323 of 2009 and CIT Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 we are of the view that the additions cannot be made or sustained on the strength of the amendment effected by Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va)/43B of the Act as the legal position thereon is very clear. The departmental stand that it is clarificatory in nature has consistently been rejected. Thus, ITA-366/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2019-20 Page 4 of…

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)

…evenue. Also, we find that a similar view had been arrived at by various Hon’ble High Courts, as under :- 8 M/s. Ind Synergy Limited Vs. DCIT a. CIT Vs. Amil Ltd reported (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court) b. CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) c. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.Vs. CIT 386 ITR 410 (Patna) d. Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) e. CIT Vs. Mark Auto 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…

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)

…Limited reported in (2014) 363 ITR 307 Rajasthan. 3. CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited reported in 2014 366 ITR 163 Rajasthan. 4. Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 167 (P.H.). 5. Karnataka High Court : February 4, 2014 [2014] 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) M/s Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT 6. Karnataka High Court : [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karn) July 3,2007 Commissioner of Income –Tax vs. Sabari Enterprises 7. Calcutta High Court: August 8, 2018 Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolka…

Vhs Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1676/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1675 & 1676/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. VHS Enterprises, Vs. ITO, A-89, Malviya Nagar, Ward-29(1), South Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAFFV4441D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CA Respondent by Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.DR Date of hearing 28.03.2022 Date of pronouncement 28.03.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are against separate orders dated 17.10.2019 and 06.05.2020 of Natio…

Vhs Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1675/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1675 & 1676/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. VHS Enterprises, Vs. ITO, A-89, Malviya Nagar, Ward-29(1), South Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAFFV4441D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CA Respondent by Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.DR Date of hearing 28.03.2022 Date of pronouncement 28.03.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are against separate orders dated 17.10.2019 and 06.05.2020 of Natio…

M/S Sushma Buildtech Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CPC/DCIT, Circle-2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…eal of the assessee is allowed. 5. We further find that the Chandigarh Benches also consistently following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nuchem Ltd (ITA No. 323 of 2009) and CIT Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd.(2014) 366 ITR 167 have allowed similar claims of the assessee taking note of the fact the various Co-ordinate Benches have consistently held that the amendment to section 36(l)(va) and u/s 43B of the Act effected by the Finance Act 2021 is applicable prospectively ,reading from the Notes on Clauses at the time of introduction of the Finance Act, 2021, specifically…

M/Squixotic Healthcare, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CPC/ACIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…eal of the assessee is allowed. 5. We further find that the Chandigarh Benches also consistently following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nuchem Ltd (ITA No. 323 of 2009) and CIT Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd.(2014) 366 ITR 167 have allowed similar claims of the assessee taking note of the fact the various Co-ordinate Benches have consistently held that the amendment to section 36(l)(va) and u/s 43B of the Act effected by the Finance Act 2021 is applicable prospectively ,reading from the Notes on Clauses at the time of introduction of the Finance Act, 2021, specifically…

Manmeet Alloys Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CPC//DCIT-Circle-V(1), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms. Vidisha Vinay, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has wrongly disallowed Rs. 116244/- on account of ESI and PF without considering the judgment of Juridctional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hernia. Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 167 and also the judgment of this Honble ITAT Chandigarh in the case of DCIT vs. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills (ITA No.431 to 433/Chd/2017; 07.09.2018). ITA 318 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 Page 2 of 8 3. That the appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. That the appe…

Lion Workforce Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1186/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor & Shri N. K. Choudhrylion Workforce Solutions Vs. Dcit, Cpc, India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi C/O. Kapilgoel, Adv, F- 26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Pan: Aabcl 6633J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. KapilGoel, AdvFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…laying down the dictum ‘if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible that construction which favours the Assessee must be adopted.’ 5.4 The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. (366 ITR 167) (P&H HC) and in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Mark Auto Industries Ltd. 3 (358 ITR 43) (P&H HC) has clearly held that the Assessee is entitled to claim deduction of employee’s share of ESI & PF u/s.43B of the Act, if the same has been deposited prior to the filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. 5.5. The jurisdictional High Court as well,…

Sh. Sanjeev Shyam, Shimla vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO-Ward-2, Shimla

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavsanjeev Shyam, Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम M/S Veagle Securities Service, Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, Karnataka. Kaushal Niwas, Kauftadhar, Bharari, Shimla. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bxwps6383L

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sanjeev Shyam, Deputy Commissioner of बनाम M/s Veagle Securities Service, Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, Karnataka. Kaushal Niwas, Kauftadhar, Bharari, Shimla. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BXWPS6383L "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Vishal Mohan, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr.Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing: 14.03.2022 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 23.03.2022 आदेश/ORDER Per Vikr…