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)

M/S. Elite India Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer-Ward-2(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 104/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sudhindranath, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

…n of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI having regard to the provisions of section 43B of the I.T.Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.). The CIT(A), however, rejected the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) noticed the difference between employer and employee contribution to PF and ESI and held that only employers contribution to PF and ESI is entitled to deduction u/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the same is paid prior to due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) 3 M/s.…

Bengaluru International Group of Service, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 648/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Bengaluru International Group Of Service, The Assistant Site No. 4 & 12, Sy.No. 96/1, Director Of Income Near South Ridge Apartment, Tax, Jakkur, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 064. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aalfb2496G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prabhakar .K.R, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Herein After Called Cit(A), Is Opposed To Law, Evidences, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Amounting To Rs.79,99,158/- Made By The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, (Ao For Short) In Respect Of The Claim Towards Employees'

For Appellant: Shri Prabhakar .K.R, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Bengaluru International Group of Service, The Assistant Site No. 4 & 12, Sy.No. 96/1, Director of Income Near South Ridge Apartment, tax, Jakkur, CPC, Bangalore – 560 064. Vs. Bangalore. PAN: AALFB2496G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Prabhakar .K.R, CA : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by the as…

Ashwin Shetty, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 600/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Ashwin Shetty, The Assistant No. 63/A, 13Th Cross, Commissioner Of J.P. Nagar 3Rd Phase, Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 078. Cpc, Pan: Anaps7985B Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.N. Shyanbhag, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.09.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Appeals Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,11,013/-Being Belated Payment Of Employees Contribution Of Esi & Pf Paid Before Due Date For Filing The Return Of Income & An Amount Of Rs.18,362/- Being Club Expenses Incurred By The Employees Made By The A.O. Cpc In 143(1) Proceedings. 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Amendment By Way Explanation 2 To Section 36(1) (Va) & Explanation 5 To The Section 43B Made In The Finance Act 2021 Has Retrospective Effect As Such The Decisions Relied On By The Appellant Are Not Applicable.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Shyanbhag, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Ashwin Shetty, The Assistant No. 63/A, 13th Cross, Commissioner of J.P. Nagar 3rd Phase, Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 078. CPC, PAN: ANAPS7985B Vs. Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S.N. Shyanbhag, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by the assessee has been filed by assessee again…

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)

…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 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) i. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as employees contribution to PF and ESI, as both are covered u/s 4…

Catayser Eduventures (India)P Ltd, Indore vs. The DCIT2(1) Indore, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/IND/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Maheshwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of Rs.12,32,945/- in respect of the belated payments of the Employee’s share of PF and ESI was allowable having regard to the judgement of the Hon’ble M/s. Continental Restaurant & Café Co. Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teroka Limited reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar) since the same has been paid before the due date for filing the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act and hence, the disallowance made ought to have been deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A)/ NFAC is not justified in holding that the amendment made by insertion of Explanation 2 to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act and the insertion…

Catayser Eduventures (India)P Ltd, Indore vs. The DCIT2(1) Indore, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Maheshwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ITA No.239/Ind/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Catalyser Eduventures (India) P. Ltd., vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), 163, Catalyser House, Indore. Kanchanbagh, Near Geeta Bhawan Square, Indore - 452 001. [PAN – AAECC 0148 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nilesh Maheshwari, AR Respondent by : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 23.02.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.03.2022 O R D E R PER S…

Smt. P. Kavitha, Legal Representative of Late Sri. P. Gopinatha Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 666/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

…n of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI having regard to the provisions of section 43B of the I.T.Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.). The CIT(A), however, rejected 3 ITA Nos.665-667/Bang/2021. Smt.P.Kavitha LR of Late Sri P Gopinatha Reddy. the appeals of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that the issue involved in the appeals is debatable and hence appeal cannot be entertained from an order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. It was further held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va…

Smt. P. Kavitha, Legal Representative of Late Sri. P. Gopinatha Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 665/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

…n of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI having regard to the provisions of section 43B of the I.T.Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.). The CIT(A), however, rejected 3 ITA Nos.665-667/Bang/2021. Smt.P.Kavitha LR of Late Sri P Gopinatha Reddy. the appeals of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that the issue involved in the appeals is debatable and hence appeal cannot be entertained from an order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. It was further held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va…

P. Gopinatha Reddy (HUF), Through P. Vishwak Sena Reddy (Karta), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 661/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

…n of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI having regard to the provisions of section 43B of the I.T.Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.). The CIT(A), however, rejected the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) noticed the difference between employer and employee contribution to PF and ESI and held that only employers contribution to PF and ESI is entitled to deduction u/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the same is paid prior to due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the…

Ikon Labels Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 658/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raj Kamal Ganeriwala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

…n of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI having regard to the provisions of section 43B of the I.T.Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.). The CIT(A), however, rejected the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) noticed the difference between employer and employee contribution to PF and ESI and held that only employers contribution to PF and ESI is entitled to deduction u/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the same is paid prior to due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the…

Nuance Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)1), Bangalore

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

ITA 649/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

…n of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI having regard to the provisions of section 43B of the I.T.Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.). The CIT(A), however, rejected the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) noticed the difference between employer and employee contribution to PF and ESI and held that only employers contribution to PF and ESI is entitled to deduction u/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the same is paid prior to due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) 3 M/s.…

Sri Panati Vikramdeva Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 529/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

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

…n of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI having regard to the provisions of section 43B of the I.T.Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.). The CIT(A), however, rejected the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) noticed the difference between employer and employee contribution to PF and ESI and held that only employers contribution to PF and ESI is entitled to deduction u/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the same is paid prior to due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the…

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)

…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, Kolkata-41 8. Rajasthan High Court: August4,2016 Commissioner of Income Tax…

Amba Tech Engineering, Jaipur vs. ITO, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)

…due date of filing of return of income, no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) can be made and that this issue is settled in favour of the assesseee by the judgments of Hon’ble High Courts, which are produced as under:- 1. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT: February 4, 2014 [2014] 366 ITR 408 (Kar) M/S ESSAE TERAOKA PVT LTD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT: [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karn): July 3, 2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS SABARI ENTERPRISES 3. CALCUTTA HIGH COURT: August 8, 2018 PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA — 1 4.RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT: Au…

Sasmos Het Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 636/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Susan Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

…n of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI having regard to the provisions of section 43B of the I.T.Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.). The CIT(A), however, rejected the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) noticed the difference between employer and employee contribution to PF and ESI and held that only employers contribution to PF and ESI is entitled to deduction u/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the same is paid prior to due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the…

Roopa Sampath Kumar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 624/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 Ms. Roopa Sampath Kumar, The Assistant No. 103, Blue Cross Director Of Income Chambers, Tax, Infantry Road, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 Vs. Bangalore. 001. Pan: Ablpk3199A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) — Nfac, Delhi, In So Far Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Delhi Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Employees' Contribution Towards Provident Fund & Employees' State Insurance Of Rs.5,17,229/- Without

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ms. Roopa Sampath Kumar, The Assistant No. 103, Blue Cross Director of Income Chambers, Tax, Infantry Road, CPC, Bangalore – 560 Vs. Bangalore. 001. PAN: ABLPK3199A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 28-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by the assessee has been filed by assessee again…

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

…view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2014) 366 ITR 408. Dispute relates to A.Y. 200809. 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. 1,04,62…

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

…view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2014) 366 ITR 408. Dispute relates to A.Y. 200809. 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. 1,04,62…

Suraj Kiran Fabrics, 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, 306401, Rajasthan vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 23(3)(6)

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1604/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesuraj Kiran Fabrics Vs. Jurisdictional Ao 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, Ward23(3)(6) Rajasthan-306401 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs1244A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Jodhpur, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Suraj Kiran Fabrics Vs. Jurisdictional AO 8th, Cloth Market, Pali, Ward23(3)(6) Rajasthan-306401 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAFS1244A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Date of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 21 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Jodhpur, passed u/s 154 and…

M/S Bbr (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 92/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

…duction of the employees’ contribution of PF and ESI having regard to the provision to section 43B of the Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, reported in 366 ITR 408. The CIT(A) after noticing the difference between the employer’s 3 M/s.BBR (India) Private Limited. contribution and employees’ contribution to PF and ESI held that only employer’s contribution to the PF and ESI is entitled to deduction u/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the payments are made prior to the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of t…

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

M/S. Elite India Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer-Ward-2(1)(4), Bangalore

Bengaluru International Group of Service, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Ashwin Shetty, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

M/S Ind Synergy Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur (Cg)

Catayser Eduventures (India)P Ltd, Indore vs. The DCIT2(1) Indore, Indore

Catayser Eduventures (India)P Ltd, Indore vs. The DCIT2(1) Indore, Indore

Smt. P. Kavitha, Legal Representative of Late Sri. P. Gopinatha Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Smt. P. Kavitha, Legal Representative of Late Sri. P. Gopinatha Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

P. Gopinatha Reddy (HUF), Through P. Vishwak Sena Reddy (Karta), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Ikon Labels Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Nuance Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)1), Bangalore

Sri Panati Vikramdeva Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

Amit Singh, Bhiwadi (Alwar) vs. DCIT, CPC- Bengaluru

Amba Tech Engineering, Jaipur vs. ITO, Bhiwadi

Sasmos Het Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Roopa Sampath Kumar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

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

Suraj Kiran Fabrics, 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, 306401, Rajasthan vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 23(3)(6)

M/S Bbr (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore