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 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.

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 11 Section 12 Section 2(15)Section 10(23C)Section 12A Section 143(3)Section 10(20A)Section 11(1)(a)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assets stpi unit section 10(20a)convertible foreign exchange section 12aa(3)section 60 section 13(8)section 11(4a)proviso to section 2(15)business expediency section 11(1)(a)section 194j

Judgments citing Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT

Famy Care Private Limited (Formerly Known As Famy Care Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5984/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) Famy Care Pvt Ltd, Acit, Circle-2(1)(2), Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Brady House, 12/14, Veer Nariman Road, V/S Fort, Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaacf 0632Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 70

…nsulting Pvt Ltd (348 ITR 72 Bom),  Changepond Technologies P Ltd Vs ACIT ( 22SOT 22) Chennai,  Patspin India Ltd Vs CIT (38 SOT 369 ) Chennai,  Scientific Atlanta India Technology P Ltd Vs ACIT (38 SOT 252) Chennai,  Genstener Duplicators Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (117 ITR 1) SC,  CIT Vs Himatsinghike Seide Ltd ( 286 ITR 255 Knt),  G Jwelecraft Ltd Vs CIT (ITA No. 5087/Mum/2012 and  CBDT Circular No. 279/Misc/M/-116/2012-ITJ dated 16.07.2013. 6. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. The ld. DR for the revenue further submits that as per section 5 of Income Tax Act…

Hira Lal Agarwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Siliguri

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 146/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Hira Lal Agarwal V/S. Dcit, Circle-1, C/O Kishore Kumar Lohia, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Smritidham Paribahan Nagar, Building Opposite Hotel Matigara,Siliguri Gate Way, Sevoke Road, Siliguri-734001 [Pan No.Acmpa 4071 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-09-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22-11-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 18.12.2017 Passed In Case No.95/Cit(A)/Slg/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Submits At The Outset That The Assessee No More Wishes To Press For His Legal Ground Challenging Validity Of Re-Opening. The Same Is Therefore Rejected As Not Pressed. 3. Next Comes The Latter Issue On Merits Qua Correct Application Of Sec. 10(13A) In Respect Of Any Special Allowance Granted To An Assessee By His Employer To Meet Expenditure Actually Incurred On Payment Of Rent (By

Section 1Section 10Section 143(3)

…ertakng character of dearness allowance despite the same being related to team as well as individual achievements going by the relevant terms of appointment. Hon'ble apex court’s decision in Gestetner Duplicators (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC) settled the law long back that salary; for the purpose of computing sec.10(13A) exemption, means basic salary including dearness allowance and commission based on fixed rates if the terms of the employment so provide. We make it clear that the assessee’s terms of employment have nowhere been referred by the lower authorities to this effect. We…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Zaveri & Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 864/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 1O

…he annual performance report. 31. We find that no material has been brought on record by the Revenue to controvert the above submission of the assessee. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gestatner Duplicators Private Ltd. Vs. CIT 117 ITR 1 (SC) held as under: “In that situation we do not think that it was open to the taxing authorities to question the recognition in any of the relevant years on the ground that the Assessee’s provident fund did not satisfy any particular condition mentioned in r.4. It would be conducive to judicial discipline and the maintaining of certainty and unif…

M/S. Zaveri & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 630/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 1O

Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT Range 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 2880/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jigar SaiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 37(2)Section 7

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2880/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Private DCIT – Range-4(1) Limited,Bayer House, Central Avenue, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Hiranandani Estate, Thane-400 607 Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AABCB 3852 F…

Firozabad Shikohabad, Firozabad vs. C.I.T.-II, Agra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/AGR/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: This Bench, Alongwith The Annexures Mentioned Therein. The Contents Thereof Are As Follows:

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…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…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Institute of Rural Management, Anand

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2495/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2495/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Shah, AR

Section 2(3)Section 2(38)Section 36

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘सी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी एस.एस.गोदारा, "या"यक सद"य एवं "द"प कुमार के"डया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2495/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) DCIT (Exemptions) Institute of Rural बनाम/ Circle-2 Management, Anand Vs. Ahmedabad Post Box No.60, Anand – 388 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAATI 0767 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.DR अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellan…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Jbf Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5637/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2695/M/11 & I.T.A.No.6209/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Jbf Industries Limited बनाम/ Addl. Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Express Tower, Income Tax 4(2) Vs. Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5637/Mum/13, I.T.A.2765/Mum/11

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

…sing officer is directed to be deleted. 21. No distinguishable facts has been placed on record to differentiate the finding of the CIT(A). The matter of controversy has been decided on the basis of law settled in Gestetner Duplicators (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 1 (SC) and M/s. S.H.Kelkar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA No.7256&7257/M/2010, A.Y.2006-07 & 2007- 08, Dt.07.11.2014. The CIT(A) has passed the order on this issue reasonably and justifiably which does not require to be interfere with at this appellate stage, hence this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. ISSUE NO.5: 22. U…

M/S. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh vs. CIT (E), Lucknow

The appeal is allowed

ITA 113/DEL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2016

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: -- Greater Noida Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, H-169, Chitvan Estate, Lucknow. Sector-Gamma, Gr. Noida City, District – Gautam Budh Nagar. Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalg0129L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: - - Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, First Floor, Commercial Complex, Lucknow. P-2, Sector-Omega 1, Greater Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalt0341D) Assessee By: S/Shri Balbir Singh & Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv., Sk Gupta & Ms. Raj Rani, Cas. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:

For Appellant: S/Shri Balbir Singh & AbhinavFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar, CIT( DR)

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 6

…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 Appea…

ACIT, Chennai vs. True Value Homes (India) P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 464/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.464/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Nischal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. G. Gopalan, Retired JCIT

Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ii)

…d that section 36(1)(ii) is not applicable to the payment made by the assessee to its managing director. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) further, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gestener Duplicators(P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 117 ITR 1, held that the commission paid to Shri Ravichandran, the managing director of the assessee-company, is part of the salary. The only thing is that the commission has been paid on the basis of the turnover; but still the payment was in the nature of salary for services rendered by Shri Ravichandran. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) also held t…