Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT

117 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1979#2295 most cited

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.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT · employer contribution · recognized provident fund · business expenditure · Section 11 · Section 12 · Section 12A · Section 2(15) · income tax deduction · provident fund deduction

Also reported as

1 Taxmann 1

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12Section 2(15)Section 10(23C)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 10(20A)Section 11(1)(a)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assetsstpi unitsection 10(20a)convertible foreign exchangesection 12aa(3)section 60section 13(8)section 11(4a)proviso to section 2(15)business expediencysection 11(1)(a)section 194j

Judgments citing Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 164/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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

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

…Page 1 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.630 & 631/Lkw/2016 Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2010-11 I.T.A. No.23 & 24/Lkw/2017 Assessment year:2009-10 & 2010-11 I.T.A. No.164 & 165/Lkw/2017 Assessment year:2011-12 & 2012-13 I.T.A. No.210 & 211/Lkw/2017 Assessment year:2013-14 & 2014-15 A.C.I.T. (Exemptions), Vs. M/s U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow. 104, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow. PAN:AAAJU0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri G. C. Sri…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 631/LKW/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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

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

…Page 1 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.630 & 631/Lkw/2016 Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2010-11 I.T.A. No.23 & 24/Lkw/2017 Assessment year:2009-10 & 2010-11 I.T.A. No.164 & 165/Lkw/2017 Assessment year:2011-12 & 2012-13 I.T.A. No.210 & 211/Lkw/2017 Assessment year:2013-14 & 2014-15 A.C.I.T. (Exemptions), Vs. M/s U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow. 104, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow. PAN:AAAJU0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri G. C. Sri…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 630/LKW/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

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

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

…Page 1 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.630 & 631/Lkw/2016 Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2010-11 I.T.A. No.23 & 24/Lkw/2017 Assessment year:2009-10 & 2010-11 I.T.A. No.164 & 165/Lkw/2017 Assessment year:2011-12 & 2012-13 I.T.A. No.210 & 211/Lkw/2017 Assessment year:2013-14 & 2014-15 A.C.I.T. (Exemptions), Vs. M/s U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow. 104, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow. PAN:AAAJU0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri G. C. Sri…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. DCIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 666/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(15)Section 40

…n 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. vs. CIT [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 I.T.A. Nos.656, 665 & 666/Lkw/2019 26 Assessment year:2012-13 expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. DCIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 665/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(15)Section 40

…n 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. vs. CIT [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 I.T.A. Nos.656, 665 & 666/Lkw/2019 26 Assessment year:2012-13 expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. DCIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 656/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(15)Section 40

…n 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. vs. CIT [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 I.T.A. Nos.656, 665 & 666/Lkw/2019 26 Assessment year:2012-13 expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. DCIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 439/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

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

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…n 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. vs. CIT [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. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation Ltd., in Income Tax Appe…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. ACIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 186/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…n 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. vs. CIT [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. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation Ltd., in Income Tax Appe…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. ACIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 185/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…n 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. vs. CIT [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. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation Ltd., in Income Tax Appe…

Lucknow Evelopment Authority, Lucknow vs. I.T.O., Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 164/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…n 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. vs. CIT [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. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation Ltd., in Income Tax Appe…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 163/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…n 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. vs. CIT [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. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation Ltd., in Income Tax Appe…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…even if it is a «professional misconduct it is to be dealt with b Medical Council of India. The income tax authority cannot decide the medical ethics when the original authority has partly allowed the expenses.  Gestetner Duplicators Private Limited vs. CIT (117 ITR 1) [SC] (Refer Page No 329337 of the legal paperbook) wherein it was held that The Court had to consider whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction made by way of a contribution to an approved provident fund under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act. The Court held that It was not open to the taxing authorities to question the recognition granted by t…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…even if it is a «professional misconduct it is to be dealt with b Medical Council of India. The income tax authority cannot decide the medical ethics when the original authority has partly allowed the expenses.  Gestetner Duplicators Private Limited vs. CIT (117 ITR 1) [SC] (Refer Page No 329337 of the legal paperbook) wherein it was held that The Court had to consider whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction made by way of a contribution to an approved provident fund under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act. The Court held that It was not open to the taxing authorities to question the recognition granted by t…

The ITO, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2663/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…y provision of SEZ Act, 2005 or SEZ Rules,2006 or that the assessee was not an entrepreneur referred to in clause (j) of section 2 of SEZ Act, 2005 ....xxx" The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gestetner Duplications P. Ltd. vs. CIT ( 117 ITR 1 ) relied on by the Tribunal are as under: "12. The facts in the present case that need be stressed in this behalf are that it was as far back as 1937 that the Commissioner of Income- tax had granted recognition to the provident fund maintained by the assessee under the relevant rules under 1922 Act, that such recognition had been granted after the…

Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2593/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…y provision of SEZ Act, 2005 or SEZ Rules,2006 or that the assessee was not an entrepreneur referred to in clause (j) of section 2 of SEZ Act, 2005 ....xxx" The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gestetner Duplications P. Ltd. vs. CIT ( 117 ITR 1 ) relied on by the Tribunal are as under: "12. The facts in the present case that need be stressed in this behalf are that it was as far back as 1937 that the Commissioner of Income- tax had granted recognition to the provident fund maintained by the assessee under the relevant rules under 1922 Act, that such recognition had been granted after the…

M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

…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’able 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. C.8. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. C.8.1. Upon a query being raised by the be…

DCIT (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Education and Deveopment Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1535/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2020AY 2012-13
Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 12A

…d counsel submits that it cannot now be open to the Assessing Officer to disregard the approval so granted. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Gestetner Duplicators Pvt Ltd Vs CIT [(1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein it is inter alia held that once recognition was granted to the provident fund trust was granted by the ITA Nos 1423, 1424 and 1535/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 27 of 51 Commissioner, and it remains valid, “it was not open to the taxing authorities to question the recognition in any of the relevant years on the…

Tata Education and Deveopment Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT(Exp)-2(1) Now Assessed by DCIT (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1424/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2020AY 2012-13
Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 12A

…d counsel submits that it cannot now be open to the Assessing Officer to disregard the approval so granted. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Gestetner Duplicators Pvt Ltd Vs CIT [(1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein it is inter alia held that once recognition was granted to the provident fund trust was granted by the ITA Nos 1423, 1424 and 1535/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 27 of 51 Commissioner, and it remains valid, “it was not open to the taxing authorities to question the recognition in any of the relevant years on the…

Tata Education and Deveopment Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT(Exp)-2(1) Now Assessed by DCIT (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1423/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2020AY 2011-12
Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 12A

…d counsel submits that it cannot now be open to the Assessing Officer to disregard the approval so granted. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Gestetner Duplicators Pvt Ltd Vs CIT [(1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein it is inter alia held that once recognition was granted to the provident fund trust was granted by the ITA Nos 1423, 1424 and 1535/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 27 of 51 Commissioner, and it remains valid, “it was not open to the taxing authorities to question the recognition in any of the relevant years on the…

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Aligarh Development Authority (Ada), Aligarh

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 4263/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…annot be ignored or wished away 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. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in 27. the case of CIT vs. M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation Ltd., in Income Tax…