Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd.

366 ITR 163High Court2014#234 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd. authority for?

Deduction for employee contributions to provident fund and other funds is disallowed if not paid by the due date of filing the return of income, particularly when Section 2(24)(x) and Section 36(1)(va) are considered. The omission of the second proviso to Section 43B(b) does not negate this disallowance.

326

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd. · section 2(24)(x) · section 36(1)(va) · section 43B · employee contribution · provident fund · deduction disallowed · due date of return

Issues it is cited on

section 158besection 34(1)(iv)section 36(va)section 113section 92fsection 34(1)clarificatory amendmentretrospective amendmentsection 36(1)(iv)section 158bbsection 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd.

Faridabad Service Station, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-30(4), Delhi

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

ITA 1472/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Faridabad Service Station, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 18/4, Mathura Road, Ward-30(4), Faridabad Delhi PAN :AAAFF1550A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Alok Kumar Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.07.2022 Date of pronouncement 26.07.2022 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 28.09.2021 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is…

J.P. Motor Rpivate Limited, Lucknow vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 118/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 J.P. Motor Pvt. Ltd. V. The Acit 313/22, Khun Khun Ji Road Range 1 Chowk, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcj6763H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 07 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…eme Court had no occasion to consider deduction with reference to Section 36(1)(va). For the same reason Gujrat High 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…

Optech Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2128/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Optech Engineering Pvt. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Ltd., Cpc, D 151, Amar Gian, Post Bag No.2, Vs. Opp New St Stand, Electronic City Post Office, Khopat, Bangalore – 560 500 Thane- 400 601 Pan: Aaaco7459C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dinesh Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25 . 07 . 2022 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Singh, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Shakari 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, wh…

M/S Amalgamations Repco Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 559/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R,Vijayaraghvan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.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,…

United Shippers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7801/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhunited Shippers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Prospect Income Tax-3(3) Chambers, D.N. Road, Air India Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0764C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Aakash Marthak &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Shakari 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, whe…

P. Rajesh Ship Breaking Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1980/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhp. Rajesh Ship Breaking Vs. Acit, Circle 4(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., 61/2 Lakri Aayakar Bhavan, Bunder, Rey Road, M.K. Road, Darukhana, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacp7197G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: C.V. JainFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 34 taxman.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Shakari 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, whe…

Ravindra Nath Sahni, New Delhi vs. ACIT CPC, New Delhi

ITA 1784/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1784/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ravindra Nath Saini, Vs Acit, 51, Pashim Marg, Vsant Vihar, Cpc, New Delhi-110057 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abjps2875D Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Batra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Batra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shankar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…eme Court had no occasion to consider deduction with reference to Section 36(1)(va). For the same reason Gujarat High Court dissented with the judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167 , Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had a…

Tuff Guard Force Private Limited, Ghatkopar West vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2450/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Tuff Guard Force Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income 207, Kails Esplanade, Lbs Marg, Vs. Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Ghatkopar (W), Delhi. Mumbai 400 086 Pan No.Aabcb4892K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri D.B. Shah. Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022. O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.28.01.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri D.B. Shah
Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Tuff Guard Force Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of Income 207, Kails Esplanade, LBS Marg, Vs. Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Ghatkopar (W), Delhi. Mumbai 400 086 PAN No.AABCB4892K Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri D.B. Shah. Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 21.06.2022. Date of pronouncement : 12.07.2022. O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, A.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (…

DCIT, CC -3 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Talentpro India Hr Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 459/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.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,…

Mohd Haseeb, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Range 6(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 76/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jun 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Mohd. Haseeb V. The Ito 551 Jha, Ram Nagar Range 6(2) Kanpur Road, Alambagh Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abcph6980P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because Without Considering The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.23,88,734/- Under Section 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Being Delay In Deposition Of Employees Share Of Provident Fund. 2. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Impugned Addition/Allowance Assessment Order Are Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…eme Court had no occasion to consider deduction with reference to Section 36(1)(va). For the same reason Gujrat High 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…

Ryders Equestrian Products Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 127/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ryders Equestrain Products V. The Dy. Cit Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1)(I) 50-A, 150, Feet Road Jajmau Lucknow Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr3352B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.9.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…eme Court had no occasion to consider deduction with reference to Section 36(1)(va). For the same reason Gujrat High 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…

Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Central Circle 13, Delhi

ITA 27/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 27/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., Vs Adit, 7/56, Desh Bandhu Gupta Cpc, Road, Karol Bagh, Central Delhi, Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4873C Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…eme Court had no occasion to consider deduction with reference to Section 36(1)(va). For the same reason Gujarat High Court dissented with the judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167 , Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had a…

Gurudev Motors Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 490/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (C.A)-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 43B

…r); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.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,…

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. ITO. Non Corp Ward 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 444/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan(C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.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,…

ITO, Ward1(1), Trichy vs. Anjappar Chettinad Restaurant, Trichy

Appeal is allowed

ITA 443/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan(C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.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,…

Anjappar Chettinad Restaurant Adayar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Cop Ward-15(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 442/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.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,…

Sri Mookambika Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, Madurai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 425/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Balakrishnan (for assessee)For Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.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,…

Sahana Clothing Company Private Limited, Dindigul vs. PCIT, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 417/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.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,…

Urc Construction Pvt Ltd., Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 390/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.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,…

Hlf Services Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Ward, 2(3), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 370/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.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,…