(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

378 ITR 443High Court2015#90 most cited

What is (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd. authority for?

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

631

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 372,250 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Merchem Ltd. · 378 ITR 443 · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 2(24)(x) · employees' contribution ESI PF · belated remittance · disallowance of deduction · Section 139(1) · Section 43B · Checkmate Services

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 43b(b)clarificatory amendmentretrospective amendmentsection 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 2(24)section 36(1)section 43section 36section 139(1)section 139

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

Shivganga Drillers P Ltd, Indore vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 174/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jain & Shreya Jain, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 234BSection 36

…ITA No.174/Ind/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shivganga Drillers Private Ltd. Vs. CPC, Income Tax, Indore Bangalore [PAN – AAJCS2458Q] (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Appellant by : Shri Prakash Jain & Shreya Jain, A.Rs. Respondent by : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 24.02.2022 Date of pronouncement : 17 .05.2022 O R D E R Per Bhagirath Mal Biyani, A.M.: THIS APPEAL: 1. T…

Muhammed Aftab Alam, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 19/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Muhammed Aftab Alam V. Dcit-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, Sf Colony Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acqpa5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 18.11.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Intimation U/S 154 Sent By Cpc Where By It Processed The Return Of Income Of Appellant For Ay 2019-20 At Rs.26,09,757/-.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…issioner of Income Tax Vs Rai Agro Industries Ltd., (2011) 334 ITR 122, to hold that Section 43B shall apply to both 'contributions' i.e. employers' and employees'. 24. Kerala High Court in recent judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Merchem Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 443, has followed the decision of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and dissented with the otherwise judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Spectrum C…

Muhammed Aftab Alam, Lucknow vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, DCIT -6, Lucknow New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 18/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Muhammed Aftab Alam V. Dcit-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, Sf Colony Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acqpa5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 18.11.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Intimation U/S 154 Sent By Cpc Where By It Processed The Return Of Income Of Appellant For Ay 2019-20 At Rs.36,47,045/-.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…issioner of Income Tax Vs Rai Agro Industries Ltd., (2011) 334 ITR 122, to hold that Section 43B shall apply to both 'contributions' i.e. employers' and employees'. 24. Kerala High Court in recent judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Merchem Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 443, has followed the decision of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and dissented with the otherwise judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Spectrum C…

Hipower Support Centre LLP, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 103/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Sushen Srivathsan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…le only with prospective Page 4 of 6 effect from 1.4.2021, we hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenues case is supported by the following case laws. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) ; (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.); (iii) CIT vs. South India Corpora' 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) 7. The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore. 8. In…

Asm Marketing Private Limited, Chennai vs. Aoc.Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 144/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Ganesh Babu (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय -ी महावीर िसंह, उपा34 एवं माननीय -ी मनोज कुमार अ8वाल ,लेखा सद; के सम4। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.143/Chny/2022 (िनधाDरण वषD / Assessment Years: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.144/Chny/2022 (िनधाDरण वषD / Assessment Years: 2018-19) ASM Marketing Private Limited Income Tax Officer बनाम/ No. 9, Nagappa Iyer Street, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAHC…

Asm Marketing Private Limited, Chennai vs. Aoc.Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 143/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Ganesh Babu (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय -ी महावीर िसंह, उपा34 एवं माननीय -ी मनोज कुमार अ8वाल ,लेखा सद; के सम4। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.143/Chny/2022 (िनधाDरण वषD / Assessment Years: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.144/Chny/2022 (िनधाDरण वषD / Assessment Years: 2018-19) ASM Marketing Private Limited Income Tax Officer बनाम/ No. 9, Nagappa Iyer Street, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAHC…

B.K.Khare & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhb.K. Khare & Co. Vs. Acit 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4Th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafb0265E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…1 ITA No.230/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 B.K. Khare And Co. Vs. ACIT, 16(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER B.K. Khare And Co. Vs. ACIT 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAFB0265E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Sanjeev V. Joshi Respondent by : Shri C.T. Mathews Date of Hearing 10.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: The present a…

B.K.Khare & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhb.K. Khare & Co. Vs. Acit 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4Th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafb0265E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…1 ITA No.229/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 B.K. Khare And Co. Vs. ACIT, 16(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER B.K. Khare And Co. Vs. ACIT 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAFB0265E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Sanjeev V. Joshi Respondent by : Shri C.T. Mathews Date of Hearing 10.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: The present a…

B.K.Khare & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhb.K. Khare & Co. Vs. Acit 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4Th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafb0265E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…1 ITA No.228/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 B.K. Khare And Co. Vs. ACIT, 16(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER B.K. Khare And Co. Vs. ACIT 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAFB0265E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Sanjeev V. Joshi Respondent by : Shri C.T. Mathews Date of Hearing 10.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: The present a…

Veritas Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2457/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…1 ITA No.2456 & 2457/Mum/2021 A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Veritas Infratech Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2456 & 2457/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) Veritas Infratech Pvt. Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1) Ltd., 8th Floor K. Raheja Aayakar Bhavan, Prime, Sagbaug Road, Mumbai - 400020 Off. Andheri Kurla Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAFCV0393R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ashok Mehta Respondent by : S.N. Kabr…

Visa Consolidated Support Services (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2454/MUM/2021[2019-20AAACV009394F]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awashty & Shri Amarjit Singhvisa Consolidated Vs. Centralized Processing Support Services (India) Center, Bengaluru Private Limited Karnataka - 560500 1702, A Wing, The Capital, 17Th Floor, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacv9394F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Anish Thacker &For Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…1 ITA No.2454/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2019-20 Visa Consolidated Support Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Centralized Processing Center IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASHTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Visa Consolidated Vs. Centralized Processing Support Services (India) Center, Bengaluru Private Limited Karnataka - 560500 1702, A Wing, The Capital, 17th Floor, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACV9394F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Anish Thacker & Hemen Chandariya Resp…

Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, Sonebhadra vs. Dy. CIT, (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…dras High Court in the case of Industrial Security and Intelligence Private Limited (supra). The Revenue brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Madras High Court , decision(s) of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443(Ker.) and also decision in the case of Popular Vehicles and Services Private Limited v. CIT reported in (2018) 96 taxmann.com 13(Ker.), wherein this issue is decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in favour of Revenue and with this background, Hon'ble Madras High Court remanded the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of…

Ticomp Heels Private Limited, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 86/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…missioner of IncomeTax Vs Rai Agro Industries Ltd., (2011) 334 ITR 122, to hold that Section 43B shall apply to both 'contributions' i.e. employers' and employees'. 24. Kerala High Court in recent judgment in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Merchem Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 443, has followed the decision of Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and dissented with the otherwise judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Spectrum Consul…

Emson Tools Mfg. Corpn. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT/DCIT- 1, Ludhiana

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

ITA 100/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 May 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 23(4)

…to be applicable only with prospective effect from 1.4.2021, I hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [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) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an…

Lalit Kumar Arora, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cr-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 121/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Furnishing The Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. When The Matter Was Taken To The Ld. Cit(A) The Said Disallowance Was Sustained.

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…to be applicable only with prospective effect from 1.4.2021, I hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [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) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identi…

Sunlight Machine Tools, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…sment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 lTD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) 14. Nuzivedu Swati Coastal Consortium vs. ITO [2015] 62 taxmann.com 258 (Hyderabad - Trib.) 15. DCIT…

Sunlight Machine Tools, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 46/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…sment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 lTD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) 14. Nuzivedu Swati Coastal Consortium vs. ITO [2015] 62 taxmann.com 258 (Hyderabad - Trib.) 15. DCIT…

Alert Manpower, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…sment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 lTD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) 14. Nuzivedu Swati Coastal Consortium vs. ITO [2015] 62 taxmann.com 258 (Hyderabad - Trib.) 15. DCIT…

Alert Manpower, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…sment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 lTD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) 14. Nuzivedu Swati Coastal Consortium vs. ITO [2015] 62 taxmann.com 258 (Hyderabad - Trib.) 15. DCIT…

M/S. Futura Digital Color Press, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…1; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; ITA Nos.743/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 8 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 lTD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) 14. Nuzivedu Swati Coastal Consortium vs. ITO [2015] 62 taxmann.com 258 (Hyderabad - Trib.) 15. DCIT…