How many judgments cite (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.?

631 judgments on BharatTax cite (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd. (378 ITR 443), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(1).

(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 372,263 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 amendment retrospective amendment section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 43b section 2(24)section 36(1)section 43 section 36 section 139(1)section 139

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

Sri Basavaraj Gunjegai, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

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 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…1; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; ITA Nos.742/Bang/2021 Page 8 of 9 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…

Vardan Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Income Tax Dept, Mumbai

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

ITA 2344/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvardan Nursing Home Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangaluru Private Limited, Cpc Income Tax 65, Jawahar Nagar, Opp Department Prakash Hotel, Goregaon West, Mumbai – 400062 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccv2156P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…1 ITA No. 2344/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 Vardan Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Vardan Nursing Home Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru Private Limited, CPC Income Tax 65, Jawahar Nagar, Opp Department Prakash Hotel, Goregaon West, Mumbai – 400062 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACCV2156P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : S.N. Kabra Date of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM…

Steel Bird International, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 63, New Delhi

ITA 1573/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1573/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Steel Bird International, Vs Jcit, 2E/3, Jhandewalan Extn., Range-63, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfs7296K Assessee By : Sh. Vikas Katyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Katyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…mmissioner of Income-Tax v. 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 v. Merchem Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 443, has followed the decision of Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax v. Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and dissented with the otherwise judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Spectrum Co…

DCIT CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Eversendai Construction Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 965/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.965/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eversendai Construction Private Limited, No. 1 & 2, The Lords, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Guindy, Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 032. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacce2174N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 09.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 9 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 41(1)

…s. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13 (Kerala), 2. CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala). 14 I.T.A. No. 965/Chny/20 The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon’ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants to advance the proposition that the provisions of se…

Orient Craft Ltd., Delhi vs. Asst. DIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 477/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 477/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Orient Craft Ltd., Vs Asstt. Dit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Cpc, D-28, South Extension, Bangalore Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0068M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Mahavir Paints and Adhesives Pvt.Ltd, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 20/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Mahavir Paints & V. The Income Tax Officer Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Ward 2(3)(3) 123/760-D, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacm9521B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 20.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has .Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Amount Paid Towards Esic & Epf Of The Employees, Which Amount Being Allowable Both On The Basis Of Interpretation Of The Statute & On The Basis Of The Decision Of The Apex Court In The, Case Of Allom Extrusion 319 Ir 306 (Sc). Pr. Cit Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. & The Allahabad High Court In The Case Of Shagun Foundry Private Limited Vs. Cit ,Ita No. .87 Of 20061 'The Same Be Allowed. 2. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Esic & Epf, Being A Business Expenditure Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Having Been 'Paid Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income, The Same Being An Allowable Business

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R

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…

M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd, Hazratganj vs. The ACIT -5, Lucknow New

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R

Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd, Hazratgang vs. The ACIT -5, Lucknow New

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R

Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Mr. Shitij Dhawan, Kanpur vs. The Assessing Officer, Special Range

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…me 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'. Page 9 of 17 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…

M/S Longowalia Yarns Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Central Cirle -1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 87/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Filing Of The Return.

For Appellant: None (Application Rejected)For Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d 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 ident…

Forcepoint Software Consulting India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 6/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailforcepoint Software Vs. Assistant Director Of Consulting India Pvt. Income Tax, Cpc Ltd., Level 2, Kalpataru Bangalore Synergy Opp. Grand Karnataka 560500 Hyatt, Santacruz (East) Mumbai- 400055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacw6672P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Renu KapoorFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ITA No.06/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 1 Forcepoint Software Consulting India pvt. Ltd. Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Forcepoint Software Vs. Assistant Director of Consulting India Pvt. Income Tax, CPC Ltd., Level 2, Kalpataru Bangalore Synergy Opp. Grand Karnataka 560500 Hyatt, Santacruz (East) Mumbai- 400055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACW6672P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Renu Kapoor Respondent by : S.N. Kabra Date of Hearing 25.04.2022 Date of Prono…

Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir CPC``, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2260/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvijay Bag Singh Vs. The Deputy Rajpurohit, Unit No. 2 Commissioner Of Income Building No. 2 Jaswant Tax, Cpc, Bangalore, Bagh, Sion Trombay 560100 Road, Chembur Mumbai – 400071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adqpr7848L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…1 ITA No.2260/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit Vs. The DCIT,CPC, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Vijay Bag Singh Vs. The Deputy Rajpurohit, Unit No. 2 Commissioner of Income Building No. 2 Jaswant Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bagh, Sion Trombay 560100 Road, Chembur Mumbai – 400071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ADQPR7848L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : S.N. Kabra Date of Hearing 27.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement 27.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R P…

Taj Granites Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 80/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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) Rajesh Motors (Auto) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to b…

Taj Granites Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 79/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Vyona Logistics Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 117/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary ( JCIT) a

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…

Alfamax Packaging Solutions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 116/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary ( JCIT) a

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…

Rajesh Motors (Auto) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 311/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Ajeet Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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…

M/S. Dpn Spinners P Ltd, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 76/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.76/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjunraj, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Sanat Kumar Raha

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13 (Kerala), 2. CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala). The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon’ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants to advance the proposition that the provisions of section 43B encompass within…

M/S Chennai Citizen Security Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.34/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Chennai Citizen Security Services Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, 12/3, Ii Floor, Jambulingam Street Cpc, Bengaluru. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Pan: Aaecc 4507H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 25.04.2022

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13 (Kerala), 12 2. CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala). The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon’ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants to advance the proposition that the provisions of section 43B encompass within…