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 367,164 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

Ticomp Heels Private Limited, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 86/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…w the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Gujrat State Road I.T.A. No.86/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2019-20 6 Transport Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax, (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. 1,04,6…

Bloom Systems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2348/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 2348, 2393 & 2394/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2017-18) & ITA.Nos. 2403 & 2404/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/s. Bloom Systems Pvt. Ltd., v. Income Tax Officer – 6(1)(4) 504, Sai Sharan, N.C. Kelkar Road 503, 5th Floor Dadar (W), Mumbai - 400028 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAECB3365Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay R. Singh Department by : Shri Love Kumar Date of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.…

Sunlight Machine Tools, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(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 ITA Nos.46 & 47/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 9 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…

Sunlight Machine Tools, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 46/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(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 ITA Nos.46 & 47/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 9 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…

Alert Manpower, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 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…

Alert Manpower, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 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…

M/S. Futura Digital Color Press, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(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…

Sri Basavaraj Gunjegai, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 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…

Steel Bird International, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 63, New Delhi

ITA 1573/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1573/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Steel Bird International, Vs Jcit, 2E/3, Jhandewalan Extn., Range-63, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfs7296K Assessee By : Sh. Vikas Katyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Katyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member ITA No. 1573/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Steel Bird International, Vs JCIT, 2E/3, Jhandewalan Extn., Range-63, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABFS7296K Assessee by : Sh. Vikas Katyal, CA Revenue by : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-20, New D…

Nirmal Kumar Bardiya, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…efore which the employer is required to deposit the employee’s contribution under the relevant fund under any Act, rule, order, notification issued thereunder etc. 3.2 In certain cases such as Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teroka (P) Ltd. vs DCIT (366 ITR 408), Rajasthan HC in case of PCIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Cor. Ltd (2017) 84 taxmann.com 173, Bombay HC in case of Geekay Security Service vs DCIT (2019) 101 taxmann.com 192, courts had applied provisions of Section 43B and allowed the deduction of employee’s contribution under section 36(1)(va), which is paid by the taxpayer employer after the…

Orient Craft Ltd., Delhi vs. Asst. DIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 477/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 477/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Orient Craft Ltd., Vs Asstt. Dit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Cpc, D-28, South Extension, Bangalore Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0068M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member ITA No. 477/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Orient Craft Ltd., Vs Asstt. DIT, C/o M/s RRA TaxIndia, CPC, D-28, South Extension, Bangalore Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACO0068M Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee…

Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1958/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1958 & 1959/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2017-18 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Mr.R.D. Khona.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Love Kumar.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1958 & 1959/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Pravin Electricals Pvt Vs CIT (A), National Ltd., Faceless Appeal E-5/2, 1st Floor, Centre. Highland Park, Jai Delhi Shastri Nagar, Mulund Colony, Mulund (W), Mumbai - 400082 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. :AABCP9664P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.R.D. Khona.AR Respondent by : Mr. Love Kumar.DR Date of Hearing 26.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE…

Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Astt. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore [DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai]

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1838/MUM/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhemkay Facilities Vs. Acit (Cpc), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [Dcit Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Emkay Facilities Vs. ACIT (CPC), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [DCIT Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCE0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order…

M/S Mahavir Paints and Adhesives Pvt.Ltd, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 20/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Mahavir Paints & V. The Income Tax Officer Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Ward 2(3)(3) 123/760-D, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacm9521B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 20.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has .Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Amount Paid Towards Esic & Epf Of The Employees, Which Amount Being Allowable Both On The Basis Of Interpretation Of The Statute & On The Basis Of The Decision Of The Apex Court In The, Case Of Allom Extrusion 319 Ir 306 (Sc). Pr. Cit Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. & The Allahabad High Court In The Case Of Shagun Foundry Private Limited Vs. Cit ,Ita No. .87 Of 20061 'The Same Be Allowed. 2. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Esic & Epf, Being A Business Expenditure Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Having Been 'Paid Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income, The Same Being An Allowable Business

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd, Hazratganj vs. The ACIT -5, Lucknow New

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd, Hazratgang vs. The ACIT -5, Lucknow New

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Mr. Shitij Dhawan, Kanpur vs. The Assessing Officer, Special Range

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Ajeet Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…specified under Section 139(1) of the Act, no disallowance can be made: • CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 185 Taxman 416(SC) • CIT vs JVVNL (2014) Rajasthan HC • CIT vs Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahkariSagh Ltd (2014) Rajasthan HC • ESSAE TERAOKA (P) LTD Vs DCIT 366 ITR 408 (Karnataka HC) • CIT Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd And Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd [2014] 363 ITR 30 (Rajasthan HC) • CIT Vs Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sang h Limited, Udaipur [2014] 366 ITR 163 (Rajasthan HC) • CIT vs. State bank of Bikaner &Jaipur and Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan HC) • Pr. CIT…

Mr. Atulbhai Ravjibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 300/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2018-19 Mr. Atulbhai Ravjibhai Patel, The Dcit, S-09, Second Floor, Indiabulls Vs Cpc, Mega Mall, Jetalpur Road, Bangalore Vadodara Pan : Ahupp 6260 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Written Submission On Record Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…atel Vs. DCIT AY : 2018-19 5 iii) CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mils (P.) Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 167 (P&H) iv) CIT vs. Nuchem Ltd. [2015] 59 taxmann.com 455 (P&H) v) CIT vs. Magus Customers Dialog (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 94 vi) Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT, 366 ITR 408 (Kar) vii) Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd v. CIT [2013] 215 taxman 597(Kar) viii) CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Del) ix) PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn Ltd [2017] 250 taxman 32(Raj) x) Rakesh Janghu vs. CPC, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi Trib) xi) B.R.S. Precision Manufacturing (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT, [2022] 1…

Tegsons India, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Ludhiana

ITA 78/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vibhore Garg, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR

…609 of 2009 order dated 22 September, 2014 d. Lakhani Rubber Udyog Punjab and Haryana, 312 ITR 0014. 5.1 It was submitted that furthermore, similar judgments have been passed by almost all the other Hon'ble High Courts as under: - a) Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. 366 ITR 408, Karnataka HC. b) Karnataka High Court in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. c) Bombay High Court in the case of Ghatage Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) d) Delhi High Court in the case of AIMIL Limited [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) e) Rajasthan High Court in the case of TATE Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70…