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 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 366,470 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 234B Section 234C Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 43B Section 143(3)Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

employees contribution to pf section 2(24)(x)section 36(va)section 43b(b)section 2(24)section 36(1)(va)section 43b section 43 extension of limitation section 36 assistant director section 36(1)

Judgments citing Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

Ef Site Technologies Private Limited, Benglauru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 387/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Amrit Raj Singh, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 436Section 43B

…tted that the assessee has remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.), the assessee is entitled to deduction of the same. The CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) noticed the difference between the employees’ contribution and the employer’s contribution and held insofar as the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF, the same need to be remitted within the due date as mentioned in…

Equipment Fabricators, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 23ASection 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…

Shakuntala Agarbathi Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

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

ITA 385/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Nishi Padma, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…oyees’ contribution to ESI was paid before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, and hence, entitled to deduction in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.). The CIT(A) noted the judicial pronouncements for and against the assessee and by placing reliance on the amendment to section 43B and 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act by the Finance Act, 2021, held that the amendment is clarificatory and has retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal befo…

Focus Consultancy Services, Bengaluru vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 60/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Shree Hari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

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

…. 4. We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and also in the case of M/s. EssaeTeroka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 408 supports the case of the assessee. There should not be any dispute that the decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court is binding on all authorities below it. Hence, the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in placing reliance on the decision rendered by non-jurisdictional High Court, when there is a decision of jurisdictional High Court on the ve…

M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 315/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…of the belated payments of the Employee's share of PF and ESI was allowable having regard to the judgement of the 2 ITA No.315/Bang/2021. M/s.Nirmal Enviro Solutions Private Limited. Hon'ble 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] 1 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…

M/S. the Contenental Restaurant & Cafe Co., Bengaluru vs. Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore

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

ITA 388/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

…espect of the belated payments of the Employee’s share of PF and ESI was allowable having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble 2 ITA No.388/Bang/2021. 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] I 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…

Bevel Gears (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 376/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Gururaj Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.). The learned AR submitted that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and does not apply for the relevant assessment year. In this context, the learned AR relied on the following orders of the Tribunal:- (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Tri…

M/S. Jana Urban Services for Transformation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 307/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh S Gaddi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri I.C Prabhakar, JCIT(DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 6

…of the Act and it is not hit by explanation 2 to Page 6 of 16 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…

The Chodavaram Co-Operative Sugars Limited, Chodavaram vs. The Dy.CIT/ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 25/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR

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

…of the Act. 5.2 The ld. Commissioner failed to consider the judgments in favour of the Assessee, few of which was are referring, passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essase Teraoka (The Chodavaram Co-op. Sugars Ltd.) (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (366 ITR 408); the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (35 Taxman 616) and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. R.M. Exports Vs. CIT in ITA No. 115/2009 decided on 06/08/2013. 5.3 It is not in controversy that there are various judgments on both sides and the controversy has been…

Reliant Investigation and Security Services, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.144/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Reliant Investigation & Security Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Ward-2(5) Lig-C-556, Ground Floor Visakhapatnam Sagar Nagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aakfr4627C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 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…

Ippili Srinivasa Rao, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.133/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Ippili Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.21-3-199/4 Ward-2 Ippiliveedhi Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Bijps7510K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR

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

Focus Trans Tech Shipping Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Range-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.132/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S Focus Trans Tech Shipping Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Private Ltd. Circle-3(1) 402, 9-29-19/A, Waltair Heights Visakhapatnam Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcf3074H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2021 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR

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

S.V. .Engineering Constructions India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S S.V.Engineering Constructions Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax India (P) Ltd. Circle-3(1) B-Block, 2Nd Floor Visakhapatnam Vuda Udyog Bhavan Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aancs4420J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR

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

Vani Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

The appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 83/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…e 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. (M/s. Vani Constructions) 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…

The Chodavaram Co-Operative Sugars Limited, Chodavaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Visakhapatnam

ITA 28/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR

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

DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Indo Shell Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1882/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Indo Shell Automative Corporate Circle-1, Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Coimbatore. A-9, Sidco Industrial Estate, Kurichi,Coimbatore-641 021. Pan: Aabci 3140D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Arjunraj, C.A for ""

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(va)

…date of filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable as deduction. This legal position has been reiterated by several High Courts including the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s.Essae Teraoka Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (246 CTR 286) and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Fabriks Ltd. (350 ITR 327). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 250 Taxmann 16 has considered an…

M/S Course5 Intelligence Pvt. Ltd vs. The Income Tax Officer

Appeals stand disposed of, as indicated above

ITA/389/2014HC Karnataka01 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 10ASection 195Section 2Section 260Section 260ASection 36Section 40

…04 ITR 719(SC). Re: Substantial questions of law No.5 to 7: These questions are answered in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd., V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-11(3), (2014 366 ITR 408 (Kar). The said submission is placed on record. 9 Accordingly, following the said decisions referred to above, we answer the questions of law No.1 in favour of the revenue and 2 to 7 in favour of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid, substantial questions of law raised by the assessee in ITA No.389/2014 would become…

Shri B. Purushothaman, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 200/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri B. Purushothaman, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 12, Redhills Road, Kolathur, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 099. Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Ahipp9984F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai Dated 28.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The First Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Employee’S Contribution Amount To ₹.21,77,123/- Towards Epf.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

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

…ovident Fund shall be allowed, if it is paid on or before the due date as contemplated under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act". This law has been reiterated by several High Courts viz. the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Essae Teraoka Pvt Ltd. vs. DCIT [246 CTR 286], Rajasthan High Court on CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70, CIT vs. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [(2014) (5) TMI 222], Bombay High Court in CIT vs Nipso Fabriks Ltd. [350 ITR 327] etc. 5 I.T.A. No. 200/Chny/20 5.3 Moreover, in a recent decision in the case of PCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation…

ACIT, Corp Cir-2, Coimbatore vs. Indsil Hydro Power & Manganese Ltd, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3491/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3491/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Indsil Hydro Power & Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Vs. Manganese Ltd., “Indsil House”, No. 63, Race Course Road, T V Samy Road (West), Coimbatore 641 018. R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. [Pan: Aaaci4918G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Arjun Raj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 04.08.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

Section 2(24)(vd)Section 28Section 43B

…ovident Fund shall be allowed, if it is paid on or before the due date as contemplated under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act". This law has been reiterated by several High Courts viz. the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Essae Teraoka Pvt Ltd. vs. DCIT [246 CTR 286], Rajasthan High Court on CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70, CIT vs. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [(2014) (5) TMI 222], Bombay High Court in CIT vs Nipso Fabriks Ltd. [350 ITR 327] etc. 6.2 Further, in a recent decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporat…

DCIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi vs. Planman Hr (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5152/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs Planman Hr (P) Ltd., Circle-20(1), 48, Community Centre, New Delhi. Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aafcp0981K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th May, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The First Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 54,31,041/- Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Fact That The Amount Has Been Paid By Assessee Was On Account Of Infraction The Basis Of Explanation To Section 37 Of The Act Which Says That Any Expenditure Incurred By An Assessee For Any Purpose Which Is An Offence Or Which Is Prohibited By Law Shall Not Be Deemed To Have Been Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Or Profession & No Deduction Or Allowance Shall Be Made In Respect Of Such Expenditure.”

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. DR

Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 DCIT, Vs Planman HR (P) Ltd., Circle-20(1), 48, Community Centre, New Delhi. Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. PAN: AAFCP0981K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30th May, 2017 of th…