(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 372,373 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.

Devi Shanker, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, Karnataka

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation would 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." (ii) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Ker) held that in case of employee’s contribution, and assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) only if the amount so received from employee is credited in specified account within the due date as per the relevant statute. (iii) Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 (Del.) (iv) Hon'ble Gujarat State Road Transport…

Karni Kehar Security Co-Operative Society Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation would 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." (ii) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Ker) held that in case of employee’s contribution, and assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) only if the amount so received from employee is credited in specified account within the due date as per the relevant statute. (iii) Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 (Del.) (iv) Hon'ble Gujarat State Road Transport…

Group Zero, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 250/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation would 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." (ii) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Ker) held that in case of employee’s contribution, and assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) only if the amount so received from employee is credited in specified account within the due date as per the relevant statute. (iii) Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 (Del.) (iv) Hon'ble Gujarat State Road Transport…

Shakti Industries, Ahmedgarh vs. ADIT, CPC/DCIT-Circle-4, Ludhiana

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

ITA 307/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(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…

Kesri Singh, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

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

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return For The Year. Kesri Singh Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Rathore (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
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 identi…

Alsisar Mahal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 1 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 295/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Return Amounting To Rs.105036 During The Year. 2. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Bade In Law & As Well As On Facts. Alsisar Mahal Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Rathore (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(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 identi…

Dushyant Kumar Tyagi, G1-1103 R.I.A vs. DCIT CPC Bengaluru, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 278/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rahis Mohammed, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 2Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 5

…gh court is not considered while passing the order by the NFAC and has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gujarat State Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170, Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Merchem Ltd., 378 ITR 443 and Hon'ble Madras High also where the contrary views there in respect of this issue. The NFAC has also relied upon various decision connected these Hon'ble High Courts and the amendment made in 6 Dushyant Kumar Tyagi, vs DCIT, CPC, Bengluru the Finance Act, 2021 and contended that the amendment being curative in nature should apply retrospecti…

J.M.C Plywood, Goraya vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Phagwara

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 4/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation would 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.’’ (ii) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vsMerchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (ker)held that in case of employee’s contribution, an assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) only if the amount so received from employee is credited in specified account within the due date as per the relevant statute. (iii) Hon’ble Delhi Court in case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 (Del.) (iv) Hon’ble Gujarat State Road Transpor…

M/S Diamond Red Tanneries, Kapurthala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 21/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation would 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.’’ (ii) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vsMerchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (ker)held that in case of employee’s contribution, an assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) only if the amount so received from employee is credited in specified account within the due date as per the relevant statute. (iii) Hon’ble Delhi Court in case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 (Del.) (iv) Hon’ble Gujarat State Road Transpor…

Khalsa Bakery, Kaputhala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4 (2), Jalandhar

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 20/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation would 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.’’ (ii) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vsMerchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (ker)held that in case of employee’s contribution, an assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) only if the amount so received from employee is credited in specified account within the due date as per the relevant statute. (iii) Hon’ble Delhi Court in case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 (Del.) (iv) Hon’ble Gujarat State Road Transpor…

M/S Gupta Builders and Promoters Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CPC/DCIT, Circle-2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 324/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 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…

Ernst & Young Service Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 8(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assesses is allowed

ITA 5613/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Addition Of Rs. 23,48,801/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Disallowance .

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Harpal Singh Kharab, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORESHIR R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ernst & Young Service Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ACIT, 6th Floor, Worldmark 1, Asset Circle-8(2), Area, 11, Hospitality District, New Delhi IGI Airport, New Delhi PAN: AACCP8967E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Ld. Adv Ms. Viyushti Aggarwal, Ld. Adv Revenue by: Shri Harpal Singh Kharab, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 24/02/2022 O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J. M.: The Assessee has preferred the instant appeal against the 1. order dated…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1., Chennai vs. M/S Paypal India Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 450/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P Sajit Kumar(JCIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ashish– Ld. AR
Section 139(1)Section 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…

S.E.Palanivel, Salem, Tamilnadu vs. Amrit Raj Singh, Salem

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 352/CHNY/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am S.

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…

Samay Projects Private Limited, Chennnai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 331/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am S.

Section 139(1)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…

Benco Thermal Technologies Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 281/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yeswanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajith Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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…

Sree Ram Constructions, No.77, Ramanuja Nagar, Uppilipalayam Post, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 273/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am S.

…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…

Suresh Productions Entertainment LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 134/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am S.

Section 139(1)Section 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…

Prahlad Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)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.) Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.Vs. ADIT & Ors. appeals (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…

The Earth House Resorts LLP, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-2(3), Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 28/JPR/2022[2019-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)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.) Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.Vs. ADIT & Ors. appeals (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…