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 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

ACIT, Circle -1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 438/VIZ/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

…4, much after the due date prescribed under the PF Act but before the due date of filing of the return of income for the said year. In this regard it is relevant to refer to the following judicial pronouncements. In the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 43 Taxmann 33, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court took the view that the word contribution occurring in Sec.43B of the I.T.Act would include employees contribution to PF, in the light of the definition of the word, 'contribution' by Sec.2(c) of P.F. Act, as per which contribution would mean both the employers contribution and employees contribution. Accordingl…

Bharat Heavy Plate & Vessels Limited, Now Known As Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (Hpvp Unit), Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 406/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

…4, much after the due date prescribed under the PF Act but before the due date of filing of the return of income for the said year. In this regard it is relevant to refer to the following judicial pronouncements. In the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 43 Taxmann 33, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court took the view that the word contribution occurring in Sec.43B of the I.T.Act would include employees contribution to PF, in the light of the definition of the word, 'contribution' by Sec.2(c) of P.F. Act, as per which contribution would mean both the employers contribution and employees contribution. Accordingl…

Bharat Heavy Plate & Vessels Limited, Now Known As Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (Hpvp Unit), Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 405/VIZ/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

…4, much after the due date prescribed under the PF Act but before the due date of filing of the return of income for the said year. In this regard it is relevant to refer to the following judicial pronouncements. In the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 43 Taxmann 33, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court took the view that the word contribution occurring in Sec.43B of the I.T.Act would include employees contribution to PF, in the light of the definition of the word, 'contribution' by Sec.2(c) of P.F. Act, as per which contribution would mean both the employers contribution and employees contribution. Accordingl…

DCIT, Cir -1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lexicon Auto Limited, Kolkata

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 1354/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2008-09

Section 143(3)

…differentiated the employees & employers contribution to provident fund as far as allowability of the same is concerned under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2014] 366 ITR 408/222 Taxman 170 (Mag.)/43 taxmann.com 33 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 ITA No.1354/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2008-…

M/S. Kalinga Institute of Training for Security & Consultancy Services, Balasore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Balasore

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 436/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Dec 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…filing the return u/s.139(1) will not call for any disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 6. I find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd.vs DCIT, (2014) 366 ITR 408 vide judgment dated 4.2.2014 held that the word contribution would mean in EPF and ESI Act refers to both employees and employers contribution to PF and, therefore, no disallowance is to be made under section 43B. Therefore, deduction is also available to employee’s contribution to PF U/S.43B of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court…

M/S. Kalinga Institute of Training for Security & Consultancy Services, Balasore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Balasore

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 435/CTK/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Dec 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…filing the return u/s.139(1) will not call for any disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 6. I find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd.vs DCIT, (2014) 366 ITR 408 vide judgment dated 4.2.2014 held that the word contribution would mean in EPF and ESI Act refers to both employees and employers contribution to PF and, therefore, no disallowance is to be made under section 43B. Therefore, deduction is also available to employee’s contribution to PF U/S.43B of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court…

M/S. Powerware India Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 206/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Sainiआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.206/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Powerware India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 6A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp 1607 R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 194ASection 194CSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…iling the return u/s.139(1) will not call for any disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 11. I find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd.vs DCIT, (2014) 366 ITR 408 vide judgment dated 5 4.2.2014 held that the word contribution would mean in EPF and ESI Act refers to both employees and employers contribution to PF and, therefore, no disallowance is to be made under section 43B. Therefore, deduction is also available to employee’s contribution to PF U/S.43B of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Cou…

Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Nayagarh vs. JCIT, Ramge-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

ITA 132/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 194ASection 194CSection 194JSection 40

…he due date specified under the PF Act, which was confirmed in appeal by the CIT(A) by following various judicial pronouncements as stated in his order. 17. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd.vs DCIT, (2014) 366 ITR 408 vide judgment dated 4.2.2014 held that the word contribution would mean in EPF and ESI Act refers to both employees and employers contribution to PF and, therefore, no disallowance is to be made under section 43B. Therefore, deduction is also available to employee’s contribution to PF u/s.43B of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Co…

M/S Khoday India Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1056/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Sukumar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru
Section 14A

…employees is deleted.” Thus it is clear that the CIT (Appeals) has followed the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd 266 CTR 241 as well as in the case of Essae Teradoka P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 408 (Kar). When the payment was made before the due date of filing of the return of income, then disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not justified and accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the order of CIT (Appeals) qua this issue. 18. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of revenue a…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 663/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Dcit, Cicle-4(1), V/S. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. P-7, Chowringhee Pvt. Ltd. 6D, Shyamkunj, Square, Kolkata-69 12C, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 2972 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arivnd Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-10-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 23.01.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-4, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 17.12.2008 For Assessment Year 2006-07. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Revenue Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Cess On Green Leaf Of Rs.1172020/- Is An Allowable Expenditure Ignoring The Fact That Green Leaf Is Attributable To Agriculture Activities Which Is Taxable Under State Agriculture Income Tax Beyond The Purview Of Central Income Tax & As Per Rule 8 Only 40% Of The Composite Income Is Taxable Under Central Income Tax & Moreover On The Same Issue As Slp Is Pending Before Apex Court. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Well As In Law In Holding That Employees Contribution To Pf Of Rs.244399/- Is Allowed If Deposited Before Filing Of Return, Ignoring The Fact That

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…differentiated the employees & employers contribution to provident fund as far as allowability of the same is concerned under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2014] 366 ITR 408/222 Taxman 170 (Mag.)/43 taxmann.com 33 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 contributio…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Value Point Systems Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 449/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Ramesh, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri B.T. Shetty, CA
Section 36(1)Section 43B

…was filed before the CIT(Appeals) with the submission that the payments were made during the grace period. The CIT(Appeals) re-examined the issue in the light of judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Essae Tereoka (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, 366 ITR 408 (Kar) and deleted the addition of Rs.36,24,844. 3. Aggrieved, the revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and placed reliance upon the order of the AO; whereas the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that contribution to PF was made on 17.7.12 and 17.9.12, 17.10.12 & 17.1.13. Since the payment was made within the grace period o…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 vs. Planman Hr Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/599/2017HC Delhi11 Sept 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 36Section 43Section 7(24)(x)

…ecisions of this Court and even by the Allahabad High Court in Sagun Foundry Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur (2017) 291 CTR (All) 557 and the Karnataka High Court in M/s Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 366 ITR 408 (Kar). 5. Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded to frame the question of law as urged by the Revenue. The appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 j…

Orissa Air Products Pvt. Ltd., Dhenkanal vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 6/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri T.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…vs. Vegetables Product Ltd., 88 ITR 192 (SC). 6. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. Asse ssment Year : 201 2-2 013 7. I find that that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd.vs DCIT, (2014) 366 ITR 408 vide judgment dated 4.2.2014 held that the word contribution would mean in EPF and ESI Act refers to both employees and employers contribution to PF and, therefore, no disallowance is to be made under section 43B. Therefore, deduction is also available to employee’s contribution to PF U/S.43B of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Co…

Siguler Guff India Advisers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 403/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Siguler Guff India Dcit, Circle (3)(3) Advisers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Suite F8B, Grand Hayatt Vs. M.K. Road Plaza, Santacrus (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400055 Pan – Aamcs7072F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaika &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member M/s. Siguler Guff India DCIT, Circle (3)(3) Advisers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Suite F8B, Grand Hayatt Vs. M.K. Road Plaza, Santacrus (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400055 PAN – AAMCS7072F Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Porus Kaika & Shri Divesh Chawla Respondent by: Shri Arvind Kumar Date of Hearing: 12.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 21.04.2017 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 15, Mumbai date…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Extreme Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed

ITA 434/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A .No.434/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 144CSection 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)

…Shree Limited 12.The appellant submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [(2014) 366 ITR 117 (Guj)] relied on by the AO I DRP has been dissented from in Essae Teraoka P Ltd vs. DCIT [(2014) 366 ITR 408 (Karn)]; the appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion in the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and submits that the addition of Rs.5,74,941/- is wholly unjustified. 13.The appellant urges that its case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Alom Extrusions Ltd and other judicial decisions cited in Ground NO…

Extreme Networks India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed

ITA 449/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A .No.434/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 144CSection 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)

…Shree Limited 12.The appellant submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [(2014) 366 ITR 117 (Guj)] relied on by the AO I DRP has been dissented from in Essae Teraoka P Ltd vs. DCIT [(2014) 366 ITR 408 (Karn)]; the appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion in the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and submits that the addition of Rs.5,74,941/- is wholly unjustified. 13.The appellant urges that its case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Alom Extrusions Ltd and other judicial decisions cited in Ground NO…

Commissioner of Income Tax - III vs. M/S Mysore Minerals Ltd

ITA/145/2013HC Karnataka08 Mar 2017

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

Section 2(24)(x)Section 260Section 36(1)(va)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N K SUDHINDRARAO ITA NO.145/2013 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(1) BANGALORE ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S MYSORE MINERALS LTD NO.39, M G ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A SHANKAR & M LAVA, ADVOCATES) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER…

Temasek Holdings Advisors India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)91), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 776/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…1 Tamasek Holdings Advisors India P Ltd अपीलीय आयकरआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “के” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI "ी बी आर भा"करन, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Tamasek Holdings Advisors Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax India P Ltd, Circle-14(3)(1), 12, 3 North Avenue Maker Maxity Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai -400 051 सं लेखा "थयी.:PAN: AACCM 4000 H अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant by "ी पोरस का…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Span Outsourceing Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 53/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Span Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. Hsr Layout, 6Th Sector, Bangalore-560034. … Respondent Pan: Aaics 2409 N

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri C.Sandeep, CA
Section 10ASection 36(1)(va)Section 8

…6(1)(va) read with sed.2(24)(x) of the Act, it should be treated as income and no deduction should be allowed for delayed remittance. The ld. CIT(A), following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Essae Tera Oka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (366 ITR 408) allowed the claim. The contention of the revenue cannot be accepted in view of the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the above case. That apart, we may also state that several High Courts also followed the same ratio. Hence, we do not intend to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard on this ground of appeal. 6. In the res…