Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

366 ITR 408High Court2014#128 most cited

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).

519

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. · 366 ITR 408 · employees contribution to PF ESI · section 36(1)(va) · section 43B · due date for filing return · section 139(1) · belated deposit employees contribution · deductibility of PF ESI · disallowance provident fund ESI

Also reported as

222 Taxmann 17032 Taxmann.com 33

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 234BSection 234CSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 43BSection 143(3)Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

employees contribution to pfsection 2(24)(x)section 36(va)section 43b(b)section 2(24)section 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 43extension of limitationsection 36assistant directorsection 36(1)

Judgments citing Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

Venkara Reddy Pramod Reddy, Tumkuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 659/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Gopinath C.H., CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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 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 the I.T.Act. Further, by placing reli…

Jayarama Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and it is not hit by explanation 2 to sec.36(1)(va) of the Act which calls for payment within the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. For this purpose he relied on the judgment in the case of Essac Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 366 ITR 408 (Kar.), wherein it has held as under: “15. From bare perusal of this provision, it is clear that under the provision, for IT Act, an extension is given to the employer to make payment of contribution to provident fund or any other fund till the "due date" applicable for furnishing the return of income under sub- section(1) of section 139 of the I…

Thoughtspot India Private Limited, Bengluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 493/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Shankar D., CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and it is not hit by explanation 2 to sec.36(1)(va) of the Act which calls for payment within the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. For this purpose he relied on the judgment in the case of Essac Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 366 ITR 408 (Kar.), wherein it has held as under: “15. From bare perusal of this provision, it is clear that under the provision, for IT Act, an extension is given to the employer to make payment of contribution to provident fund or any other fund till the "due date" applicable for furnishing the return of income under sub- section(1) of section 139 of the I…

Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt.Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT, CPC/ DCIT Circle -6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Filing Of Return Of Income.” 3. The Ld. Ar Inviting Attention To The Impugned Order

For Appellant: Shri Akshun Gupta,CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ ‘बी बी.’, च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ बी बी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 158&159/CHD/2021 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / A.Y : 2018-19 & 2019-20 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) The DCIT, बनाम Pvt.Ltd., Village Dao Majra, CPC, VS Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali. Bangalore. "थायी…

M/S. Shabari Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 482/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ashwin D.Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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…

M/S. Shabari Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 481/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ashwin D.Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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…

Vidhi Clothing Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and it is not hit by explanation 2 to sec.36(1)(va) of the Act which calls for payment within the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. For this purpose he relied on the judgment in the case of Essac Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 366 ITR 408 (Kar.), wherein it has held as under: “15. From bare perusal of this provision, it is clear that under the provision, for IT Act, an extension is given to the employer to make payment of contribution to provident fund or any other fund till the "due date" applicable for furnishing Page 5 of 12 the return of income under sub-section(1) of section…

Bi Worldwide India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 433/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C.R Krishna, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e same. During the course of hearing before the CIT(A), the assessee made written submissions relaying on few more decisions of the jurisdictional High Court viz., CIT Vs. Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., 206 CTR 241 and Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 408. The Ld.CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by relying on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Gujarat Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100. The CIT(A) noticed the difference between the employees' contribution and the employer's contribution and held insofar as the employees' contributio…

Genworks Health Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 6

…u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and it is not hit by explanation 2 to sec.36(1)(va) of the Act which calls for payment within the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. For this purpose he relied on the judgment in the case of Essac Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 366 ITR 408 (Kar.), wherein it has held as under: “15. From bare perusal of this provision, it is clear that under the provision, for IT Act, an extension is given to the employer to make payment of contribution to provident fund or any other fund till the "due date" applicable for furnishing the return of income under sub-section(1) of section 139 of the IT…

M/S. Vijay Samraj Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 504/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Vijay Samraj Hotels P. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 18, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Gandhinagar, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 009. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcv4731B Appellant Respondent Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By : Advocate & Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca : Shri Raghavendra Rao, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.07.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Bengaluru Karnataka Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Advocate & Ms. Sunaina
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ate specified under the respective Act. However, the assessee had paid the same before the due date of filing of Page 5 of 8 the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (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 PF and 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…

Shand Pipe Industry Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H Ananda, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and it is not hit by explanation 2 to sec.36(1)(va) of the Act which calls for payment within the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. For this purpose he relied on the judgment in the case of Essac Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 366 ITR 408 (Kar.), wherein it has held as under: “15. From bare perusal of this provision, it is clear that under the provision, for IT Act, an extension is given to the employer to make payment of contribution to provident fund or any other fund till the "due date" applicable for furnishing the return of income under sub-section(1) of section 139 of the IT…

Mr. Rais Arif Meman, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 430/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 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 4 ITA No.430/Bang/2021. Sri.Rais Arif Meman. 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…

Mr. Yeruva Prasad, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 589/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yatish, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r to filing the return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the binding judgment of Honorable Jurisdiction High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs Sabari Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) and EssaeTeraoka Pvt Ltd v DCIT (2013) 366 ITR 408 (Kar). c)The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the objects of Faceless Appeal Scheme introduced by CDBT and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not considering the issues resolved by Jurisdictional High Court and contemptuously ignoring the binding precedent issued by Jurisdictional High Court. d)The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating tha…

Mr. Yeruva Prasad, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 588/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yatish, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r to filing the return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the binding judgment of Honorable Jurisdiction High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs Sabari Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) and EssaeTeraoka Pvt Ltd v DCIT (2013) 366 ITR 408 (Kar). c)The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the objects of Faceless Appeal Scheme introduced by CDBT and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not considering the issues resolved by Jurisdictional High Court and contemptuously ignoring the binding precedent issued by Jurisdictional High Court. d)The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating tha…

Bizviz Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 587/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sharwan Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Capt.Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 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 3 M/s.Bizviz Technologies Limited. 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…

Maheshwari Woods Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 586/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.H.Ganpatlal Kawad, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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 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 the I.T.Act. Further, by placing reli…

Maheshwari Woods Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 585/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.H.Ganpatlal Kawad, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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 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 the I.T.Act. Further, by placing reli…

Kuduva Satishbabu Sheela, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 584/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-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 3 Smt.Kuduva Sathishbabu Sheela. entitled to deduction u/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the same is paid prior to due date of filing of re…

Gowrishankar Chemicals Private Limited, Tumkur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 570/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ving regard to the 3 M/s.Gowrishankar Chemicals Private Limited 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 judicial pronouncements for and against the assessee and held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tr…

Akshara Motors Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 574/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.K.Gururaj Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Capt.Pradeep Shoury ARya, 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 judicial pronouncements for and against the assessee and held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tr…