What is Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An employer's contribution to a recognized provident fund qualifies as a business expenditure for income tax purposes.

How many judgments cite Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT?

50 judgments on BharatTax cite Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT (117 ITR 1), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 12, Section 2(15), Section 10(23C), Section 12A, Section 143(3).

Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT (117 ITR 1)

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO COMPLEX, HAPUR CHUNGI vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOTIJHEEL, KANPUR

ITA 4580/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)

…on 12AAA, therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of Sections 11 & 12. In the case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 1/1 Taxman 1 (SC), the Apex Court was called upon to determine as to whether the contribution made by the employer should be treated as a business expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund. 24. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. U.P. Forest Corpn. Ltd., Tax Appeal No.…

SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(E), PUNE

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

ITA 1552/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Mukund Bhavan Trust Cit (Exemption), Pune 1105, Raviwar Peth, Mukund Vs. Bhavan, Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaats5170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Mallikarjun Utture, Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture, CIT

Section 12ASection 13(1)(a)

…nki Tapovan Mandir vs. CIT & Anr. reported in 451 ITR 458 (Jha). He also relied on the following decisions: 18 i) DCIT vs. M.P. Madhyam (2009) 31 DTR 15 (MP) ii) Samaj Kalyan Parishad vs. ITO 107 TTJ 302 (SB) iii) Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Shri Maheshwari Agrawal maryari Panchayat (1982) 136 ITR 556 (MP) v) Shree Soni Nyat Samast Vadi vs. CIT vide ITA No.277/RJT/2019, order dated 09.07.2024 vi) CIT(E) vs. Mukund Bhavan Trust vide ITA No.683 of 2018, order dated 05.08.2022 vii) CIT vs. Paramhans Ashram Trust reported in 203 ITR 711 (Raj) viii) Farman Ali Khan vs. Mohd…

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION-CIRCLE,GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2667/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agrawal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg

Section 11Section 12Section 2(15)Section 234A

…t be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of Sections 11 & 12. In the case o f Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 8 CTR (SC) 371 : (1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC), the Apex Court was called upon to determine as to whether the contribution made by the employer should be treated as a business expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund. 27. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation Ltd., in Income Tax…

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 589/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234A

…ot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of Sections 11 & 12. In the case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 8 CTR (SC) 371 : (1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC), the Apex Court was called upon to determine as to whether the contribution made by the employer should be treated as a business expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund. 27. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation Ltd., in Income Tax A…

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT E (CIRCLE), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 305/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234A

…ot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of Sections 11 & 12. In the case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 8 CTR (SC) 371 : (1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC), the Apex Court was called upon to determine as to whether the contribution made by the employer should be treated as a business expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund. 27. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation Ltd., in Income Tax A…

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 773/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…sence of any adverse action by SEZ authority, it is incorrect to assume that assessee has not complied with requirements under SEZ Act, 2005. Placing reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gestentner Duplicators Pvt. Ltd vs CIT reported in 117 ITR 1, it has been emphasised that, it was not open for authorities below to assume any violation under SEZ Act, 2005 so long as the certificates of approval/renewal of a unit is not withdrawn by a process known to law.” (II) The co-ordinate bench has decided this issue as under in AY 2013-14:- 17 IBM India Pvt. Ltd. IT(TP) A. Nos. 773 & 2041/Ban/2016…

M/S.IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2041/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…sence of any adverse action by SEZ authority, it is incorrect to assume that assessee has not complied with requirements under SEZ Act, 2005. Placing reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gestentner Duplicators Pvt. Ltd vs CIT reported in 117 ITR 1, it has been emphasised that, it was not open for authorities below to assume any violation under SEZ Act, 2005 so long as the certificates of approval/renewal of a unit is not withdrawn by a process known to law.” (II) The co-ordinate bench has decided this issue as under in AY 2013-14:- 17 IBM India Pvt. Ltd. IT(TP) A. Nos. 773 & 2041/Ban/2016…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S IBM INDIA (P) LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1228/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…sence of any adverse action by SEZ authority, it is incorrect to assume that assessee has not complied with requirements under SEZ Act, 2005. Placing reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gestentner Duplicators Pvt. Ltd vs CIT reported in 117 ITR 1, it has been emphasised that, it was not open for authorities below to assume any violation under SEZ Act, 2005 so long as the certificates of approval/renewal of a unit is not withdrawn by a process known to law.” (II) The co-ordinate bench has decided this issue as under in AY 2013-14:- 17 IBM India Pvt. Ltd. IT(TP) A. Nos. 773 & 2041/Ban/2016…

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 267/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…on 12AAA, therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of Sections 11 & 12. In the case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 1/1 Taxman 1 (SC), the Apex Court was called upon to determine as to whether the contribution made by the employer should be treated as a business expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund. 24. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. U.P. Forest Corpn. Ltd., Tax Appeal No.…

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 266/ALLD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…on 12AAA, therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of Sections 11 & 12. In the case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 1/1 Taxman 1 (SC), the Apex Court was called upon to determine as to whether the contribution made by the employer should be treated as a business expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund. 24. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. U.P. Forest Corpn. Ltd., Tax Appeal No.…

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 265/ALLD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…on 12AAA, therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of Sections 11 & 12. In the case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 1/1 Taxman 1 (SC), the Apex Court was called upon to determine as to whether the contribution made by the employer should be treated as a business expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund. 24. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. U.P. Forest Corpn. Ltd., Tax Appeal No.…

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 264/ALLD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…on 12AAA, therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of Sections 11 & 12. In the case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 1/1 Taxman 1 (SC), the Apex Court was called upon to determine as to whether the contribution made by the employer should be treated as a business expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund. 24. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. U.P. Forest Corpn. Ltd., Tax Appeal No.…

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/LKW/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18