Fluid Air (India) Ltd. v. DCIT

59 ITD 515Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1996#12876 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(x)section 2(24)section 36(1)(va)section 36salarysection 36(1)prescribedindiabusinesssection 143(3)nfactotal income

Judgments citing Fluid Air (India) Ltd. v. DCIT

Khimji Ramdas India Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2) Present Juridiction the DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 500/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.500/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Khimji Ramdas India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, City Square Godrej Ahmedabad, Vs. Garden City, Jagatpur, Present Jurisdiction Ahmedabad-382470 The Dcit, Pan : Aadck 6056 C Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Aatish Shah, Ar & Shri Anil N. Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 12.05.2023 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Ao Wd. 2(1)(2) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Impugned Order Which Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Have Similarly Cit(A) Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Impugned Order Vide His Order Passed Us.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal Vide His Order Dtd.12-05-2023 Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052777862(1) Dtd. 12/05/2023. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Without Considering/Adjudicating

For Appellant: Shri Aatish Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr DR
Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…the payments having been made within 9 to 22 days from the date of payment of salary and wages will be deemed to have been made within due date and, therefore, no disallowance could be made on this account. 4. Madras Radiators & Pressings Ltd. Vs. DCIT(1996) 59 ITD 515 (Mad.)/(1996) 56 TTJ (Mad) 662 wherein it has been observed that, "The term month' has not been defined in the Act…… Reading together ss. 36 and 38, it could be said that there is certain amount of ambiguity over the expression "15 days from the close of the month". There is also force in the submission of the assessee's counsel that in the case o…

Safal Hospitality and Maintanance Service, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 76/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438

…drafts or cheques on account of contributions and administrative charge," 1.2 Further, the appellant relied upon the following judgements (a) Fluid Air (India) Ltd Vs. DCIT (1997) 63 ITD 182 (Mumbai) And (b) Madras Radiators & Pressings Ltd Vs. DCIT (1996) 59 ITD 515 (Mad)/(1996) 56 TTJ (Mad) 662 Wherein it has been held that the term "month" has not been defined in the scheme, there is ambiguity regarding interpretation of the words "fifteen days from the close of month appearing in Paragraph 38 of Employees Provident Fund Scheme as to whether it should be reckoned from the month in which such contributions…

Mr. Narayana Nippani Rao, Mumba vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 1600/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Narayana Nippani Rao Adit, Cpc 22, Revati Nofra Near R. C. Church, Bangalore, Karnataka Vs. Colaba, Mumbai-400 005

For Appellant: Shri Karan VakhariaFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…Narayana Nippani Rao vs. ADIT paid was to be considered as payments made within the due date specified under the relevant Acts. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Madras Bench in the case of Madras Radiators & Pressings Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1996] 59 ITD 515 (Trib) and Fluid Air (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [1997] 63 ITD 182 (Mum). 7. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), on the other hand, controverted the said fact and stated that these issues have already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and also the decision of…

Kader Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Thane

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2251/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathyआअसं.2251 /मुं/2021(िन.व.2019-20) Kader Exports Private Limited D Wing, 3Rd Floor, Amerchand Mansion 16, Madame Cama Road, Colaba,Mumbai - 400 039. Pan: Aacck-9753-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax , Central Circle -3,Thane, 6Th Floor, Ahar It Park, Road No.16Z, Nehru Nagar, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West), Thane. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. AR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 39

…nd Act, 1952 or the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The due date has been explained in Clause 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952. To support his submissions he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Madras Radiators & Pressing Ltd., 59 ITD 515(Mad) (ii) The Master Polishers vs. ADIT, ITA No.252/Mum/2023 for A.Y. 2020-21 decided on 24/04/2023. 3. On the other hand, Smt. Usha Gaikwad representing the Department submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Limited vs. CIT, 448 ITR 518 as laid the controversy to the rest. Hence, there is no ambigu…

New Rampgreen Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre NFAC., Delhi

In the result Ground No. 4 is also partially allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3216/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalnew Rampgreen Technologies Private Limited F-12, Shilpin Centre, Gd Ambedkar Marg, Wadala, Mumbai-400 031 Pan: Aadcv9341F ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, 7 (2) (4) Room No.807, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil KishanlalSoiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 38Section 40A

…another way vide its submissions submitted on 11-04-2023. 4. Assessee’s counsel through his submissions relied upon the judicial pronouncements in the case of Fluid Air (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1997) 63 ITD 182, Madras radiators & Pressings Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1996) 59 ITD 515 and Kanoi Paper & Industries Ltd., Calcutta Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 1260/KOL/1996. Through these citations assessee tried to strengthen its contention w.r.t. due date as per section 38 of the EPF & MP, 1952. We have gone through these case laws and cruxes of these case laws are as under: Fluid Air (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (1997) 63 ITD 182 “13. Another qu…

Aroma Aromatics & Flavours, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1634/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1634/Del/2020 (A.Y 2017-18)

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

…see had also relied on following orders of the Tribunal: (i) Fluid Air (India) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) reported in 63 ITD 182 (Mumbai); (ii) Madras Radiators & Pressings Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (1996) reported in 59 ITD 515 (Mad.); (iii) Kanoi Paper & Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT (2002) reported in 75 TTJ 448 (Cal.). 5. Without prejudice to the above contention, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, in one of the deposits, though the due date was 15/08/2016 and the same was deposited on 16/08/2016, since the August 15th is the holiday, the payment made on 16t…

Aroma Aromatics and Flavours, Delhi vs. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1646/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Pradap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Chand, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…charge." This is further submitted before your honour that term month has not been defined in the scheme as It has been held in:- (a) Fluid Air (India) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T. (1997) 63 ITD 182 (Mumbai) and (b) Madras Radiators & Pressings Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T. (1996) 59 ITD 515 (Mad.)/ (1996) 56 TTJ (Mad.) 662 that the term "month" has not been defined in the Scheme, there is ambiguity regarding interpretation of the words "fifteen days from the close of month" appearing in Paragraph 38 of Employees' Provident Fund Scheme as to whether it should be reckoned from the month in which such contributions are received by the a…

M/S. Network Programme (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4147/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 43B

…mounts of provident fund deposited beyond the due date but within the previous year has been considered as an admissible deduction during the year. In this connection we have relied upon the decision of Madras Tribunal in the case of Madras Radiators vs. DCIT 59 ITD 515 (1996). 2. The cost incurred on certain marketable software products under developments were brought forward from previous as capital WIP. Due to uncertainty in revenue which could be realised in future from marketing such products, the management has charged off to P&L account. Since the amount is for software developed for business purpose is o…