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 372,250 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

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

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 43b(b)clarificatory 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.

Enmas India Private Limited, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/CHNY/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.714/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020 -21 M/S. Enmas India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Sp 107, Eom Square Ambattur, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Indl. Estate S.O., Tiruvallur, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Tamil Nadu 600 058. [Pan:Aabce4825F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. & Shri Sriraj Gokavarapu, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 16.12.2020 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.4,77,23,830/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

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

…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: 12 I.T.A. No. 714/Chny/22 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…

M/S, Madras Hydraulic Hose Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 702/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)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 Bab Leather Products International, Thirumudivakkam vs. DCIT, Chenai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 665/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.665/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Bab Leather Products The Deputy Commissioner Of International, 162/163, Sidco Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 044. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafb6228M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 28.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 23.09.2015 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.54,09,150/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 43B

…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…

Kalpanadevi, Pondicherry vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 664/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.664/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalpanadevi, The Assistant Director Of 34, Koil Mania Street, Vs. Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Pondicherry 605 009. Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Csjpk5198N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 10.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.14,89,000/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

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

…case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13 (Kerala), 12 I.T.A. No. 664/Chny/22 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…

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 661/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

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

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 660/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

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

M/S Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Circle 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.649/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Represented By Its Managing Income Tax, Director, No. 2/87, Raghaava Nagar, Corporate Circle 4(1), 7Th Street, Moovarasampet, Chennai Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [Pan:Aagcm1970L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. James Victor Rajkumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 25.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Eight Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A 2

For Appellant: Shri P. James Victor RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

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

…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). 12 I.T.A. No. 649/Chny/22 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…

Shri Aseen Jindal, Bhopal vs. The ADIT-CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 204/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Indore22 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Aseem Jindal Adit-Cpc Bhopal Bengaluru Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afgpj 5199 C Assessee By Ms. Shraddha Piplodiya, Adv. Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Aseem Jindal ADIT-CPC Bhopal Bengaluru Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AFGPJ 5199 C Assessee by Ms. Shraddha Piplodiya, Adv. AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 29.06.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in tur…

Rsg Solutions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi

ITA 1478/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Soni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR) and Ms. Rajeshjwari R., JCIT, Sr. DR

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

…(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…

Ritesh Tandon, Jabalpur vs. Asstt . Director of Income Tax, CPC, Ward2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 9/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

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

…ncome u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); 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), wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)…

Ritesh Tandon, Jabalpur vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax WD2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 11/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

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

Madhuram Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Indore vs. ACIT 5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 82/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Madhuram Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Acit 5(1) Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcm 1270 G Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…tIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhuram Pulses Pvt. Ltd. ACIT 5(1) Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCM 1270 G Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 30.03.2022 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of order date…

Pragya Savita, Jabalpur vs. A O Circle2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 14/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

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

…ncome u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); 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), wherein, noticing, 2 | P a g e Pragya Savita v. AO inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited…

Mukesh Kalway, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 43/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 32 & 43/JAB/2021 (Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2018-19) Mukesh Kalway, vs. Asstt. DIT, CPC, Bangalore. 106, Girnar Apartment, Opp. Tayab Ali Petrol Pump, Napier town, Jabalpur (MP) [PAN : AJDPK 3597 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate Respondent by : Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 16/09/2022 Date of pronouncement : 21/09/2022 O R D E R Per Bench: This is a set of two Appeals, i.e., for two c…

Mukesh Kalway, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

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

Jabalpur Motors Ltd, Jabalpur vs. Asstt Director of Income Tax CPC Bangalore., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 22/JAB/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr.DR

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

…ncome u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); 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), wherein, noticing, 2 | P a g e Jabalpur Motors Ltd. v. Asstt. DIT inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter a…

Shramik Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT-CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 201/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shramik Nagrik Sahakari Dcit,Cpc Bank Ltd. Bengaluru Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaajs 0383 E Assessee By Shri Sanket Mehta, Ar Shri Vijay Bansal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shramik Nagrik Sahakari DCIT,CPC Bank Ltd. Bengaluru Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAAJS 0383 E Assessee by Shri Sanket Mehta, AR Shri Vijay Bansal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 22.06.2022 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax, National Fa…

Mukesh Kumer Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. DCIT-Circle1(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 54/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Nema, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

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

…ncome u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); 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), 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 53 & 54/JAB/2022 (AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20) Mukesh Kumar Agrawal v. Dy. CIT wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view o…

Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. DCIT- Circle 1(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 53/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Nema, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

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

…ncome u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); 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), 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 53 & 54/JAB/2022 (AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20) Mukesh Kumar Agrawal v. Dy. CIT wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view o…

Apex Insurance Consultant Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -3(1), New Delhi

ITA 4748/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4748/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Apex Insurance Consultant Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 54, Basement Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Ward-3(1), Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3234H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Kanav Bali, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, CIT 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…