Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd.

269 ITR 285High Court2004#548 most cited

What is Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions towards ESI and PF are allowable as a deduction if paid by the due date for filing the income tax return, even if paid after the statutory due dates prescribed under the respective ESI/PF Acts.

176

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jairam & Sons · 269 ITR 285 · ESI contribution deduction · PF contribution deduction · employee contributions · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · due date for payment · income tax return due date · allowability of deduction

Judgments citing Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd.

Mahesh Agencies, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 522/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Mahesh Agencies, Hyderabad. Pan Aayfm3615M …..Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.C. Devdas. Respondent By : Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2018-19 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 31.07.2020 Passed In Case No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) 4 4. The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th Oct., 2021. (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt. 27.10.2021. * Reddy gp Copy to : 1. M/s. Mahesh Agencies, 13-6-434/A/1/1, Pillar No.82, Maruth…

Shri Yogesh Singla, Ludhiana vs. ADIT, CPC/ ITO-Ward-5(4), Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 234/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the…

Sh. Kulwaran Singh, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-11(3) Pune/ Current Jurisdictional Assessing Officerito-Ward-4, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 230/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the…

Sh. Yoginder Pal Singh Grewal, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-11(3)Pune/ Current Jurisdictiona Assessing Officer ITO-Ward-5, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 229/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the…

Sh. Yoginder Pal Singh Grewal, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-11(3)Pune/ Current Jurisdictiona Assessing Officer ITO-Ward-5, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 228/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the…

Shri Gurmeet Pandher, Patiala vs. ITO-Ward-2, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 227/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr & He Also Ignored The Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision In Favour Of Appellant. 2. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals) Has Wrongly Upheld The Disallowance Of Rs 1275040/- Made By Cpc Under Section 143(1) On Debatable Issue. 3. That The Assessee Craves Of Permission To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Grounds Of Appeal With Approval Of The Hon'Ble Bench.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…15] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the riv…

Harsoria Hospitality, Chandigarh vs. ITO-Ward-5(1), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 226/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr & He Also Ignored The Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision In Favour Of Appellant. 2. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals) Has Wrongly Upheld The Disallowance Of Rs 706790/- Made By Cpc Under Section 143(1) On Debatable Issue. 3. That The Assessee Craves Of Permission To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Grounds Of Appeal With Approval Of The Hon'Ble Bench.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…15] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the riv…

M/S Supermech Infrastructure Private Limited, Mohali vs. ITO-Ward-2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 221/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga, Advocate & Shri Rohit KauraFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…15] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the ri…

Shri Raja Ram, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO-Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 192/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…5] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the riv…

Shri Raja Ram, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO-Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 191/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…5] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the riv…

Sanchi Management Services Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ITO-Ward-5(2), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 190/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…5] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the riv…

Opel Sulz Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 74/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…5] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the ri…

Opel Sulz Private Limited, Bhilwra vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 73/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…5] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the ri…

Santok Sngh Gehlot, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Jodhpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 64/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…5] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the ri…

Wheel O City, Sri Ganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 63/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…5] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the ri…

Wheel O City, Sri Ganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 62/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…5] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the ri…

Shashi Maheshwari, Jodhpur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 58/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…5] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the ri…

Arpit Gulecha, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 57/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…5] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the ri…

Lubi Gel LLP, Jodhpur vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 69/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the ri…

Lubi Gel LLP, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 68/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the ri…