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 372,375 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.

The Hycount Moulders, Ernakulam vs. The ITO, Kollam

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 166/COCH/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Cochin14 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Sri Aravind Sreekumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR

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

…been a subject matter of substantial litigation. Various Hon'ble High Courts have held the issue in favour of the assessee as also various against. In fact in respect of the issue, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Merchem Ltd. (2015) [378 ITR 443] has held the issue against the assessee but in earlier decision in the case of Kerala State Warehousing Corporation in the year 2009 has held the issue in favour of the assessee. However, in the subsequent decision, the earlier decision has also not been considered and not discussed. In these circumstance, in respect of the Hon'ble Kerala High C…

The Hycount Moulders, Ernakulam vs. The ITO, Kollam

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 165/COCH/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cochin14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Sri Aravind Sreekumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR

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

Rajesh Motors Motocorp Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner Circle-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 47/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Godha (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identi…

M/S Freaking Amazing Foods Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh

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

ITA 11/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Itr.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)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) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an iden…

Ikon Labels Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajkamal Ganeriwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bangalore

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 ITD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 ITD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) 14. Nuzivedu Swati Coastal Consortium vs. ITO [2015] 62 taxmann.com 258 (Hyderabad - Trib.) 15. DCIT…

ITO-Ward-2(1), Ludhiana vs. M/S Glory Knitwears Pvt.Ltd, Ludhiana

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

ITA 327/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Filing Of Return Wherever Employee'S Contribution Is Disallowed For Once & All If Payment Is Delayed Beyond The Prescribed Time.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR

Section 139(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 iden…

Radius Engineering Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh, G., CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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 ITD 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…

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…013-14] 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; 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 ITD 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…

Atul Global Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 1 (1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 10/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(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.” 10. On an iden…

Sri Marigantu Narasimha Chari, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(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…

Sangrila Nutri Food Products, Kanpur vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 99/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2019-20

Section 139(1)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…

M/S S.K. Shoes and Boots Private Limited, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(5), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2018-19

Section 43B

…ssioner 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…

Asian Industries, Solan vs. ITO, Ward, Baddi

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

ITA 8/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 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…

Puyvast Maritime India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 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…

Waidhan Engineering &Industries Pvt . Ltd Waidhan, Singrauli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 41/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble Accountnt Member & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, Sr. DR

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 dates 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…

Waidhan Engineering &Industries, Singrauli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 40/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble Accountnt Member & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, Sr. DR

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

Garg Motors, Sirsa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 378/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ITO-Ward-2(1), Ludhiana vs. M/S Glory Knitwears Pvt.Ltd, Ludhiana

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

ITA 328/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Filing Of Return Wherever Employee'S Contribution Is Disallowed For Once & All If Payment Is Delayed Beyond The Prescribed Time.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR

Section 139(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 iden…

Arun Rawat, Baddi vs. CIT Appeal, Faceless

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

ITA 179/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 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…