(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 372,380 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.

Ultra Value, Lucknow vs. ITO (1)(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 109/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ultra Value V. The Ito (1)(1) C-1619/12, Rajajipuram Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaefu0694G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. 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 21.9.2021 For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Income Returned Should Have Been Accepted. 2. That Application Filed U/S 154 Should Have Been Accepted. 3. The Addition Made By Learned Lower Court Was Not Within The Preview Of Adjustments Which Could Be Made U/S 143(1)(A). 4. That In The Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case Learned Lower Court Erred In Holding That Amendment Made To Section 36(1)(Va) By Finance Act, 2021 Were Retrospective In Nature. 5. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Made Of Page 2 Of 17

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Seth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 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 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…

Jagmini Micro Knit Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 98/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Jagmani Micro Knit Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 2, Sarvodaya Nagar Circle 2(1)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaach3405B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 04 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)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…

Klmm Hospital Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.227/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Klmm Hospital Private Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer 29-14-58, Prakasam Road Ward - 1(1) Surya Rao Peta Visakhapatnam Vijayawada [Pan : Aadck4136F] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri PV Madhusudana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…evant fund as per the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme/Employees’ State Insurance Scheme is liable to be added to the income of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) and the decision of Hon’ble (2018) 100 taxmann.com 244 (Madras), as held that employees’ 3 ITA No.227/Viz/2021, A.Y.2018-19 KLMM Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam contribution not be paid within the due date specified under PF/ESI is not to be allowed as per section 36(1)(va). The Finance Bill 2021 recently introduced in the Parliam…

Lohman Castings Private Limited, Anakapalle vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) 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: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…fied under PF/ESI is not to be allowed as per section 36(1)(va). The Ld.CIT(A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. 3 ITA No.140/Viz/2021, A.Y.2018-19 M/s. Lohman Castings Pvt. Ltd., Anakapalle Merchem Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) and the decision of Hon’ble (2018) 100 taxmann.com 244 (Madras). The Ld.CIT(A) also observed that the Finance Act 2021 has also clarified by inserting explanation in section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the above effects as under. Explanation 2 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B…

Mithila and Mithila Enterprise, New Delhi vs. Ward- 49(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1906/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…021 Section 36(1)(viia) are retrospective in nature. The ld. CIT (Appeals) placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 417; Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Ker.); Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 409 ITR 225; Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B. S. Patel Vs. DCIT 326 ITR 457. 4. Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer, CPC cannot make…

Mithila and Mithila Enterprise, New Delhi vs. Ward- 49(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1905/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…021 Section 36(1)(viia) are retrospective in nature. The ld. CIT (Appeals) placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 417; Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Ker.); Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 409 ITR 225; Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B. S. Patel Vs. DCIT 326 ITR 457. 4. Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer, CPC cannot make…

Mithila and Mithila Enterprise, Delhi vs. Ward 49(4) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 1904/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…021 Section 36(1)(viia) are retrospective in nature. The ld. CIT (Appeals) placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 417; Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Ker.); Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 409 ITR 225; Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B. S. Patel Vs. DCIT 326 ITR 457. 4. Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer, CPC cannot make…

Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 358/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 68

…d not deposited said contribution in respective fund account on date as prescribed in Explanation to section 36(1)(va), disallowance made by Assessing Officer was just and proper - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of revenue] iii) CIT Vs. Merchem Limited, (2015) 378 ITR 443 (Kerala), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under :- 19. Therefore, income of the assessee includes any sum received by the assessee from his employee as contribution to any Provident Fund or superannuation fund or funds set up under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) or any other fund for the welfare of…

Amit Singh, Bhiwadi (Alwar) vs. DCIT, CPC- Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)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) Amit Singh vs. DCIT, CPC (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 the…

Transindia Nonwovens Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 267/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri B.P.Mundra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 24Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 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) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identi…

Amba Tech Engineering, Jaipur vs. ITO, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 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…

Medopharmprivate Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 54/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.54/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Medopharm Private Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 25, Puliyur 2Nd Main Road, Trustpuram, Vs. Income Tax, Cpc, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Aadcm9459R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 15.12.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 22.10.2018 Admitting Nil Income. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The Assessment Under 2

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…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). 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 i…

Kitty Industries Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle-III, Ludhiana

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

ITA 30/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Said Disallowance As Confirmed By The Cit(A) Is Against The Judgment Of The Jurisdictional Bench Of The Itat, Chandigarh Bench In The Case Of M/S. Mohan Bakery In Ita No. 273/2021 Pronounced On 02.12.2021 & The Judgment In The Case Of Sirsa Cooperative Marketing-Cum Processing Lc Society, Sirsa In Ita No. 274/2021 Pronounced On 02.12.2021. 3. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Or Alter Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

Vhs Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1676/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

Section 139(1)Section 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 Con…

Vhs Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1675/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

Section 139(1)Section 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 Con…

Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., Agra vs. Jurisdictional Officer, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 62/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…oper course and any other interpretation would only defeat the object and scope of both the provisions viz., 43B and 36(1)(va). Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 18 ITA No. 114/Agra/2021 & Others (58) KERALA HIGH COURT : [2015] 378 ITR 443 : September 8, 2015 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN VERSUS M/S MERCHEM LIMITED The distinction drawn to credit the amount of the employer and the employee was with a clear objective and there is no illegality or other legal infirmity in classifying the contributions of employees and employer in the matter of crediting the same to the app…

Karam Udhog, Agra vs. J.A.O., Dy. CIT.., Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 112/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…oper course and any other interpretation would only defeat the object and scope of both the provisions viz., 43B and 36(1)(va). Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 18 ITA No. 114/Agra/2021 & Others (58) KERALA HIGH COURT : [2015] 378 ITR 443 : September 8, 2015 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN VERSUS M/S MERCHEM LIMITED The distinction drawn to credit the amount of the employer and the employee was with a clear objective and there is no illegality or other legal infirmity in classifying the contributions of employees and employer in the matter of crediting the same to the app…

Prem Motors Private Limited, Gwalior vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, DCIT/ACIT, Circle1(1), Gwalior

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 100/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…oper course and any other interpretation would only defeat the object and scope of both the provisions viz., 43B and 36(1)(va). Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 18 ITA No. 114/Agra/2021 & Others (58) KERALA HIGH COURT : [2015] 378 ITR 443 : September 8, 2015 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN VERSUS M/S MERCHEM LIMITED The distinction drawn to credit the amount of the employer and the employee was with a clear objective and there is no illegality or other legal infirmity in classifying the contributions of employees and employer in the matter of crediting the same to the app…

M/S Global Polymers, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 93/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation would only defeat the object and scope of both the provisions viz., 43B and 36(1)(va). Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. KERALA HIGH COURT : [2015] 378 ITR 443 : September 8, 2015 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN VERSUS M/S MERCHEM LIMITED The distinction drawn to credit the amount of the employer and the employee was with a clear objective and there is no illegality or other legal infirmity in classifying the contributions of employees and employer in the matter of crediting the same to the app…

M/S Radish Technologies, Aligarh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle-4(1)(1), Aligarh

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 92/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation would only defeat the object and scope of both the provisions viz., 43B and 36(1)(va). Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. KERALA HIGH COURT : [2015] 378 ITR 443 : September 8, 2015 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN VERSUS M/S MERCHEM LIMITED The distinction drawn to credit the amount of the employer and the employee was with a clear objective and there is no illegality or other legal infirmity in classifying the contributions of employees and employer in the matter of crediting the same to the app…