What is Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

An employer's delayed remittance of employees' contributions to provident fund (PF) or Employees' State Insurance (ESI) is deductible if the payment is made before the due date for filing the income tax return under section 139(1), applying the provisions of section 43B and notwithstanding section 36(1)(va).

How many judgments cite Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT?

519 judgments on BharatTax cite Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (366 ITR 408), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(va), Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 143(1), Section 143(1)(a), Section 43B.

Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (366 ITR 408)

Brindavan Roller Flour Mills Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 680/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…he material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujar…

Lohman Castings Pvt Ltd, Anakapalle vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 263/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.262 & 263/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Lohman Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer C5 To C7, Nh-5 Ward-1 Industrial Development Area Anakapalle Anakapalle [Pan : Aaacl5905E] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Hemalatha, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR

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

…ibution is made on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then deduction is to be allowed under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 408 took the view that the word contribution occurring in section 43B of the Act would include employees’ contribution to PF in the light of the definition of the word contribution as per the provisions of section 2(c) of the PF Act. As per the said section, contribution would mean both employer’s contribution and employees’ contribution. Accordingly…

Lohman Castings Pvt Ltd, Anakapalli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalli

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 262/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.262 & 263/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Lohman Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer C5 To C7, Nh-5 Ward-1 Industrial Development Area Anakapalle Anakapalle [Pan : Aaacl5905E] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Hemalatha, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR

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

…ibution is made on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then deduction is to be allowed under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 408 took the view that the word contribution occurring in section 43B of the Act would include employees’ contribution to PF in the light of the definition of the word contribution as per the provisions of section 2(c) of the PF Act. As per the said section, contribution would mean both employer’s contribution and employees’ contribution. Accordingly…

Pepakayala Veerabhadrarao, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.259/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Pepakayala Veerabhadrarao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.68-10-20/B, Vidyut Nagar Ward-2 Kakinada Kakinada East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Akxpp4235H] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.Prabhakara Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR

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

…bution is made on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then deduction is to be allowed under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 408 took the view that the word contribution occurring in section 43B of the Act would include employees’ contribution to PF in the light of the definition of the word contribution as per the provisions of section 2(c) of the PF Act. As per the said section, contribution would mean both employer’s contribution and employees’ contribution. Accordingly…

Vardhaman Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-2(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.123/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Vardhaman Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer 47-11-2, Dwarakanagar Ward 2(3) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aakfv3922G] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…bution is made on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then deduction is to be allowed under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 408 took the view that the word contribution occurring in section 43B of the Act would include employees’ contribution to PF in the light of the definition of the word contribution as per the provisions of section 2(c) of the PF Act. As per the said section, contribution would mean both employer’s contribution and employees’ contribution. Accordingly…

Suresha, Ududpi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 70/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…he material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujar…

Hattigowda Narasegowda, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1) Through the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 5/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Verghese, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…he material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujar…

Chandramouli, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 4/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sachin H.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…he material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujar…

Chandramouli, Mysore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sachin H.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…he material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujar…

M/S. Brush Tech India, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sachin H.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…he material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujar…

Shantha Rao Gujju, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 158/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…he material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujar…

Shantha Rao Gujju, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 157/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…he material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujar…

Cheruvathur Veetil Damodaran, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 678/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri B. Parthasarathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…ance should not be made, since the above said payment has been made prior to the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee relied on the decision rendered by jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teroaka P Ltd (366 ITR 408)(Kar). However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee by following the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 in sections 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before me. 4. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has remitted the employees contribution of PF & ESI before the due…

Sulthan Mohammed Ismail, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 673/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…he material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujar…

Sulthan Mohammed Ismail, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 672/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…he material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujar…

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

…he view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 366 ITR 408. Dispute relates to A.Y. 2008-09. Assessee filed Return on 26.09.2008. Return was processed under Section 143(1) and thereafter on scrutiny, notice under Section 143(2) was issued. Assessing Officer completed assessment by order dated 24.12.2010 under Section 143(3) disallowing Rs.12,51,737/- under Section 36(1)(va) and also disallowing Rs.1,04,6…

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

…he view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 366 ITR 408. Dispute relates to A.Y. 2008-09. Assessee filed Return on 26.09.2008. Return was processed under Section 143(1) and thereafter on scrutiny, notice under Section 143(2) was issued. Assessing Officer completed assessment by order dated 24.12.2010 under Section 143(3) disallowing Rs.12,51,737/- under Section 36(1)(va) and also disallowing Rs.1,04,6…

Mangalore Security Services Private Limited, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 61/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anil Dsouza, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…he material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujar…

M/S. Lakhotia Belting Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax, Ward, 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 100/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kedar Paranjape, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…he material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of EssaeTeraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujar…

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

…the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Page 8 of 17 Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 366 ITR 408. Dispute relates to A.Y. 2008-09. Assessee filed Return on 26.09.2008. Return was processed under Section 143(1) and thereafter on scrutiny, notice under Section 143(2) was issued. Assessing Officer completed assessment by order dated 24.12.2010 under Section 143(3) disallowing Rs.12,51,737/- under Section 36(1)(va) and also disallowing Rs.1,04,6…

Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

What is Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

Brindavan Roller Flour Mills Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Lohman Castings Pvt Ltd, Anakapalle vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

Lohman Castings Pvt Ltd, Anakapalli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalli

Pepakayala Veerabhadrarao, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kakinada

Vardhaman Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-2(2), Visakhapatnam

Suresha, Ududpi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Hattigowda Narasegowda, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1) Through the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Chandramouli, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Chandramouli, Mysore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

M/S. Brush Tech India, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Shantha Rao Gujju, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Shantha Rao Gujju, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Cheruvathur Veetil Damodaran, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Sulthan Mohammed Ismail, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Sulthan Mohammed Ismail, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

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

Mangalore Security Services Private Limited, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Udupi

M/S. Lakhotia Belting Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax, Ward, 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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