General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT

228 CTR 72Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#15362 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 234csection 36(1)(va)section 143(1)(a)section 43bsection 44absection 36(1)section 234asection 43section 36section 234bsection 154cross objection

Judgments citing General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Prakul Luthra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 385/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 234ASection 43B

….2023 (ITAT Delhi) iv). The Master Polishers v. ADIT in ITA no. 252/Mum/2023 dated 26.04.2023 (ITAT Delhi) v). Mintri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 2009 319 ITR 264 (ITAT Delhi) vi). Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 228 CTR 72 (ITAT Delhi) 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further requested to restore the issue to the file of A.O. with a direction to find out ‘every month’ specified in Provident Fund Scheme as to whether the same is for the month for which salary/wages are ‘due’ or month for the ‘payment’ is referred to. 4 ITA No.385/Del./2023 6. Per contra, the Ld…

Rakesh Janghu, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

ITA 379/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

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

…3 (ITAT Delhi) Page 7 of 13 ITA Nos.379/Del/2023 & Ors C.O. Nos.191 &192/Del/2023 Rakesh Janghu vs. DCIT v).Mintri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 2009 319 ITR 264 (ITAT Delhi) vi).Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 228 CTR 72 (ITAT Delhi) 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further requested to restore the issue to the file of A.O. with a direction to find out ‘every month’ specified in Provident Fund Scheme as to whether the same is for the month for which salary/wages are ‘due’ or month for the ‘payment’ is referred to. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Represe…

DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Rakesh Janghu, Gurgaon

ITA 2675/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

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

…3 (ITAT Delhi) Page 7 of 13 ITA Nos.379/Del/2023 & Ors C.O. Nos.191 &192/Del/2023 Rakesh Janghu vs. DCIT v).Mintri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 2009 319 ITR 264 (ITAT Delhi) vi).Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 228 CTR 72 (ITAT Delhi) 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further requested to restore the issue to the file of A.O. with a direction to find out ‘every month’ specified in Provident Fund Scheme as to whether the same is for the month for which salary/wages are ‘due’ or month for the ‘payment’ is referred to. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Represe…

DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Rakesh Janghu, Gurgaon

ITA 2644/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

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

…3 (ITAT Delhi) Page 7 of 13 ITA Nos.379/Del/2023 & Ors C.O. Nos.191 &192/Del/2023 Rakesh Janghu vs. DCIT v).Mintri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 2009 319 ITR 264 (ITAT Delhi) vi).Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 228 CTR 72 (ITAT Delhi) 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further requested to restore the issue to the file of A.O. with a direction to find out ‘every month’ specified in Provident Fund Scheme as to whether the same is for the month for which salary/wages are ‘due’ or month for the ‘payment’ is referred to. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Represe…

Ocean Exim India Private Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 37/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prabha Rana (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…is invalid in the bench ITAT decision in Maskat Technologies Pvt Ltd decision in ITA 1540/De1/2020 order dated 30.06.2021. Further, relied the judicial pronouncement on limited & restricted scope of sec 143(1):Bombay high court 196 ITR 55; Calcutta High court 228 CTR 72) d) Thus on the above ground the A/R submits that if adjustment on account of employee contribution disallowance is made in intimation u/s 143(1) then same is bad in law and facts in light of above jurisprudence. b) Your honour, kindly notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendments in Sections…

M/S Piyanshu Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Topsia vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2350/KOL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 3Section 37

…n it had to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act as decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. In this regard it is gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 228 CTR 72 wherein it has been held that – “It is also necessary for the AO to examine second proviso before making any disallowance. A disallowance cannot be made under s. 438 simply because payment was not made within the previous year. From the facts it appears that the information contained in the tax audit report did not enable the AO to make any prima…

General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT (228 CTR 72) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax