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.

Mr. Gulrej Ansari, Unnao vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Unnao-New

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

ITA 138/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 154

…I.T.A. No.138 & 139/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2018-19 & 19-20 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.138 & 139/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2018-19 & 19-20 Mr. Gujrej Ansari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s M. S. Contractor, Ward-2(4), Qadir Bagh, Unnao. Unnao. PAN:AEUPA4534M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 19/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 30/05/2022 O R D E R These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of learn…

Neeta Tiwari, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer 4(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 125/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Neeta Tiwari V. The Assessing Officer 4(2) 24, Akansha Lucknow Eldeco Udyan Ii Uttratia, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afopt6232J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 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. Page 7 of 16 21. Karnataka High…

M/S R.K. Engineers Sales Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward - 3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 124/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S R. K. Engineers Sales V. The Dcit Limited Ward 3 B-116, 1St Floor Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcr8335D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 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…

Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Lucknow

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

ITA 121/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 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…

Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Lucknow

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

ITA 120/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 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…

Bhagwanti Rubber and Allied Products Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 31/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…I.T.A. No.31/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2019-20 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.31/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2019-20 M/s Bhagwanti Rubber and Allied Vs. Dy.C.I.T., Products Private Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), E-4, Site-1, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:AAACB5732D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C. A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 19/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 26/05/2022 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 16/12/2021. In this…

Vikash Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 126/LKW/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…I.T.A. No.126/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2019-20 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.126/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2019-20 Shri Vikas Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 128/12-C Kidwai Nagar, Ward-1(3)(5), Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:AAVPA5702C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C. A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 19/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 26/05/2022 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 18/10/2021. In this appeal the assesse…

M/S Saint-Gobain Indi Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 241/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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,…

M/S. Saint Gobain India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 240/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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,…

Sk Elecgtricals, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 239/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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,…

Amutha, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 238/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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 Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 224/CHNY/2022[2018-1]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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,…

Paramount Health Services & Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 2548/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhparamount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
Section 139Section 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…

Paramount Health Services and Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 2547/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.2547 /Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2017-18) Paramount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
Section 139Section 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…

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT, RG-8(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2440/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NahtaFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
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…

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. -8(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2113/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NahtaFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
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…

Nm Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 363/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhnm Diagnostics Private Vs. Dcit, Cpc Limited, 32, Bangalore Summerville, Jn. Of 14Th 560500 & 33Rd, Above Bombay Blue Restaurant, Link Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadcr1280P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sunil Hirawat Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): 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 Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “(1) On Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.2,08,464/Being Belated Payment Of Provident Fund U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act.

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

…lore 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…

Quick Builders, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 301/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhquick Builders Vs. Dcit, Circle 22(1) Plot No. 142, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 08, Piramal Shah House, S.V.Road, Chambers, Lalbaug, Khar, West, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafq0227F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Gyaneshwar Kataram &For 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…

Malgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2309/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhmalgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cpc, Bangalore 8, Kamala Bhavan 560100 Sharma, Industrial Estates Walbhat Road Ram Mandir (E) 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecm8352L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : B.K. Bagchi Date Of Hearing 13.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): 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 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2019-20. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Of Rs. 27,62,936/Being Payment Of Pf & Esic Dues W/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act Considering The Same As Not Deposited On Time Ignoring The Fact That The Delay Was Marginal & Payment Was Made Before Filing The Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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…

Babubhai Jagjivandas, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Banglore

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

ITA 2054/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhbabubhai Jagjivandas Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 128, Vishnu Niketan, Tax(Cpc), Bangalore Prathna Samaj Road, [Acit-19(1)Mumbai] New Charni Road, Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400004 Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafb5829N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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…