(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 372,374 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.

Sky Cotex India Private Limited, Tirupur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 151/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 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, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 151/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Sky Cotex India Private Limited ADIT बनाम/ 8/529, Arulpuram, Centralized Processing Center Vs. Karaipudur, Tirupur – 641 606. Bengaluru – 560 500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAKCS-2656-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Yeshwant…

Venus Rubbers, Coimbatore vs. ADIT, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 147/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) 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 its…

Venus Rubbers, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 146/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) 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 its…

Avan Global Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC/1718/U6/1957321506, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 145/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

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

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) 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 its…

Raksha Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 14/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Natrajan (Advocate) & Mrs. RFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 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, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 14/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Raksha Technologies Private Limited ADIT बनाम/ 29, C-Wing, 1st Floor, Shree Narayana Complex, Centralized Processing Center Vs. Sarathy Nagar, Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. Bengaluru – 560 500 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABCR-8375-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / R…

The Madras Silks India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Tirupur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 134/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)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, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.134/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Madras Silk India Private Ltd. DCIT 55, Usman Road, T.Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Circle-1 Chennai – 600 017 Tirupur – 641 604 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCT-4954-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri ARV…

Vaiyapuri Venkatasubramanian, Thiruppur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 121/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) 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 its…

M/S Imperial Granites Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 104/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) 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 its…

M/S Gbr Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward2(2), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 103/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)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, उपा""एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM No ITA No. AY Assessee Respondent Assessee by 1-2 99/Chny/2022 2017-18 Amazing Export Corporation, DCIT S. Sridhar, 100/Chny/2022 & SF.No: 105, Valayankadu, CPC, Advocate 2018-19 Vadugapalayam PO, Dharapuram Rd., Bangalore. Palladam – 641 664. PAN: AAKFA-0106-D 3-4 88/Chny/2022 2017-18 M/s. Tsugami Precision Engineering India DCIT S. Sridhar, & & P. Ltd.,…

M/S Rane Brake Lining Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 101/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate) -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 43BSection 44A

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपीलसं./ ITA Nos. 101 & 41/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/s. Rane Brake Lining Limited ADIT बनाम/ ‘Maithri’,132 Cathedral Road, Centralized Processing Center Vs. Chennai – 600 086. Bengaluru – 560 500 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AADCR-7688-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ A…

Amazing Export Corporation, Palladam vs. DCIT, CPC, Benguluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 100/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)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, उपा""एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM No ITA No. AY Assessee Respondent Assessee by 1-2 99/Chny/2022 2017-18 Amazing Export Corporation, DCIT S. Sridhar, 100/Chny/2022 & SF.No: 105, Valayankadu, CPC, Advocate 2018-19 Vadugapalayam PO, Dharapuram Rd., Bangalore. Palladam – 641 664. PAN: AAKFA-0106-D 3-4 88/Chny/2022 2017-18 M/s. Tsugami Precision Engineering India DCIT S. Sridhar, & & P. Ltd.,…

Lohman Castings Pvt Ltd, Anakapalle vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 263/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.262 & 263/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Lohman Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer C5 To C7, Nh-5 Ward-1 Industrial Development Area Anakapalle Anakapalle [Pan : Aaacl5905E] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Hemalatha, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act and or u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 9. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in the case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443 and submitted 13 ITA No.262 & 263/Viz/2021, A.Y.2019-20 M/s. Lohman Castings Pvt. Ltd., Anakapalle that employees’ contribution to provident fund is allowed as deduction, if the same is deposited on or before the due date specified under the provisions of provident fund Act. The D.R. also relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court, reporte…

Lohman Castings Pvt Ltd, Anakapalli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalli

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 262/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.262 & 263/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Lohman Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer C5 To C7, Nh-5 Ward-1 Industrial Development Area Anakapalle Anakapalle [Pan : Aaacl5905E] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Hemalatha, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act and or u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 9. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in the case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443 and submitted 13 ITA No.262 & 263/Viz/2021, A.Y.2019-20 M/s. Lohman Castings Pvt. Ltd., Anakapalle that employees’ contribution to provident fund is allowed as deduction, if the same is deposited on or before the due date specified under the provisions of provident fund Act. The D.R. also relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court, reporte…

Pepakayala Veerabhadrarao, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.259/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Pepakayala Veerabhadrarao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.68-10-20/B, Vidyut Nagar Ward-2 Kakinada Kakinada East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Akxpp4235H] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.Prabhakara Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act and or u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 9. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in the case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443 and submitted that employees’ contribution to provident fund is allowed as deduction, if the same is deposited on or before the due date specified under the provisions of provident fund Act. The D.R. also relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court, reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170, wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that since assessee…

M/S A R Transport, Satna vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Ward 2 Satna.Central Processing Centre, Bangalore, Karnaataka

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 A R Transport, Assistant Director Of Income Vs. Tax, Central Processing Satna, (M.P.) Centre, Bangalore [Pan : Aayfa 6634L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Written Submissions Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/04/2022

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…, even as, admittedly, prior to the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the relevant years. Reliance stands placed by it on, among others, CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj); CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). (refer para 4.7 of the impugned order). The matter stands examined at length by 2 AR Transport v. Asst. DIT the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), relied upon by the appellant, wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of…

Gujral Hotels Private Limited, Jabalpur vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 18/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Gujral Hotels Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Circle-2(1), Vs. Jabalpur, (M.P.) Jabalpur (M.P.)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…, even as, admittedly, prior to the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the relevant years. Reliance stands placed by it on, among others, CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj); CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), relied upon by the appellant, wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scop…

Jasuja Enterprises Pvt.Ltd, Jabalpur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 62/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Gujral Hotels Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Circle-2(1), Vs. Jabalpur, (M.P.) Jabalpur (M.P.)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…, even as, admittedly, prior to the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the relevant years. Reliance stands placed by it on, among others, CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj); CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), relied upon by the appellant, wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scop…

Vardhaman Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-2(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.123/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Vardhaman Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer 47-11-2, Dwarakanagar Ward 2(3) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aakfv3922G] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act and or u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 9. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in the case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443 and submitted that employees’ contribution to provident fund is allowed as deduction, if the same is deposited on or before the due date specified under the provisions of provident fund Act. The D.R. also relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court, reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170, wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that since assessee…

Classic Aircon, India vs. DCIT CPC, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 285/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Cit(A)-Iii, Jaipur Was Rejected /Dismissed Vide Order Dated 20.09.2021 & Same Was Served Upon The Appellant On 20.09.2021 Itself Through E-Mail. Classic Aircon Vs. Dcit, Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)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.” Classic Aircon vs…

Rameshwar Rai, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer -2, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 75/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Rameshwar Rai V. The Ito-2 5, Civil Lines Bareilly Opp. Rohila Motel Bareilly Tan/Pan:Afypr0788R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Written Submission By The Assessee. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 5.8.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Id. Cit (Appeals) (Nfac) Has Grossly Erred On Facts & Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3,37,008/- Made By The A.O. On A/C Of Employee'S Contribution Of Esi & P.F. Being Late Payment While It Has Been Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return, After Ignoring The Facts & Law As Laid Down By Hon'Ble Allahabad High Court Which Is A Jurisdictional High Court. 2. While Confirming The Addition The Id. Cit (A) Has Grossly Erred In Applying The Case Laws Of Various High Courts When The Law Laid Down By Jurisdictional High Court Was Already Available & Hon'Ble Supreme Court Had Already Dismissed Slp Filed By Deptt. Against The Order Of Rajasthan High Court. 3. The Addition Further Suffers From An Illegality Wherein The A.O. Has Erred In Making The Adjustments In Returned

For Appellant: Written submission by the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 143Section 234

…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 Page 9 of 17 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 T…