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.

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 443)

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 26/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…

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 25/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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…

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 24/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

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…

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru/ DCIT, Cr.1 Jaipur, Bengaluru, Karnataka

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

ITA 18/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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…

Tandem Allied Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 750/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sachin Metha, ARFor Respondent: Sri.D.Kiran, Addl.CIT-DR

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

…ecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd (supra) (a) CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 41 taxamnn.com 100 / 366 ITR 170 / 223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), (b) CIT v Merchem Ltd (2015) 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker) (b) Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 13 / 257 Taxman 120 / 406 ITR (Ker) 8. The CIT(A) thereafter held that there were contradicting decisions by the various High Courts on considering section 36(1)(va) and 43B and in the back drop of that Finance Bill 2021 brought in explanations to section 36(1)(va) and…

Tandem Allied Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 749/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sachin Metha, ARFor Respondent: Sri.D.Kiran, Addl.CIT-DR

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

…ecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd (supra) (a) CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 41 taxamnn.com 100 / 366 ITR 170 / 223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), (b) CIT v Merchem Ltd (2015) 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker) (b) Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 13 / 257 Taxman 120 / 406 ITR (Ker) 8. The CIT(A) thereafter held that there were contradicting decisions by the various High Courts on considering section 36(1)(va) and 43B and in the back drop of that Finance Bill 2021 brought in explanations to section 36(1)(va) and…

Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 203/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd.Mig- Vs. Dy.Commissioner / 25 A, Lawsons Bay Colony Asst.Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam Income Tax, Circle-4(1) Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aajcs2286C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Spg Mudaliar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 16.02.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

…reasonable, therefore, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) rightly confirmed the disallowance made by the AO, hence the addition is to be sustained. The Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd. reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) [2014] (Gujarat) reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170 41 taxmann.com 100. 7. We have heard Ld.DR and perused the material placed on record. After considering the facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the view that it is undisputed fact t…

Systematic Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 185/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

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

Systematic Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 184/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

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

Pragati Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycti (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepragati Fashions P Ltd., Vs. Dycti (Cpc) F.P.No. 455, Shree 1 St Floor, Prestige Sadguru Heights, Alpha, Bhavani Shankar Road, Beratenagrahara, Dadar (W) Hosur Road, Uttahalli Mumbai-400028. Hobli,Bangalore- 560100 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp1730H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.Counsel Respondent By : Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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) Pragati Fashions P Ltd, Mumbai. 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…

Tej Pal Gupta, Panchkula vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 382/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 382/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Tej Pal Gupta, The Dcit, बनाम H. No. 346, Cpc, Sector 21, Bengaluru Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaupg1545N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, CIT DR

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

…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…

Shri Vinod Jain, Ludhiana vs. ADIT, CPC/ITO-Ward-7(4), Ludhiana

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

ITA 314/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Monvica Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(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…

Mr. Ram Pal Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 5(4), Chandigarh

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

ITA 387/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 387/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Ram Pal Singh, The Ito, Ward-5(4), बनाम Sco 68, Chandigarh Ist Floor, Sec. 40-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bawps7303F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Batra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…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…

M/S Magellan Teleservices, Chandigarh vs. ADIT, CPC/JCIT(OSD), Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 257/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 257/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Magellan Teleservices, Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, बनाम H. No. 2146, Sector 35-C, Cpc, Chandigarh Bengaluru "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aanfm3056D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)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…

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as

ITA 1028/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1027 & 1028/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. East Coast Constructions Tax & Industries Ltd., Central Circle-1(1) 4, Buhari Building, Chennai-34. Moores Road, Chennai-600 006. Pan: Aaace 1662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 02.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 801ASection 80ISection 8O

…ort Corporation Ltd.(366 ITR 170), decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Madras Radiators Pressing Ltd. (264 ITR 620), the decision of Honble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT, Cochin Vs M/s Mercham Ltd. reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443 and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s LKP Securities Ltd [ITA 638/Mum/2012 dated 17.05.2013 wherein it was held that the employees’s contribution should be paid within the due date as provided in the related statutes to be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. 5.8 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated tha…

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as

ITA 1027/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1027 & 1028/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. East Coast Constructions Tax & Industries Ltd., Central Circle-1(1) 4, Buhari Building, Chennai-34. Moores Road, Chennai-600 006. Pan: Aaace 1662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 02.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 801ASection 80ISection 8O

…ort Corporation Ltd.(366 ITR 170), decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Madras Radiators Pressing Ltd. (264 ITR 620), the decision of Honble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT, Cochin Vs M/s Mercham Ltd. reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443 and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s LKP Securities Ltd [ITA 638/Mum/2012 dated 17.05.2013 wherein it was held that the employees’s contribution should be paid within the due date as provided in the related statutes to be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. 5.8 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated tha…

Franch Express Courier Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 523/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.523/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Franch Express Courier Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Director Of No. 199, Hariyan Street, C-Pallavaram, Vs. Income Tax, Cpc, Chennai 600 043. Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Aadcf3624P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Vandana Vyas, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 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 28.09.2021 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 On 30.10.2019 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹.39,17,200/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Vyas, 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…

Kasthuri Medias Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

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 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…

C Krishniah Chetty & Sons Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

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 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…

S & G Lifestyles, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 745/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, V., ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

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)) ITA No.744 & 745/Bang/2021 Page 8 of 9 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 taxm…

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

What is (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru/ DCIT, Cr.1 Jaipur, Bengaluru, Karnataka

Tandem Allied Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

Tandem Allied Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Visakhapatnam

Systematic Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

Systematic Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

Pragati Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycti (CPC), Bangalore

Tej Pal Gupta, Panchkula vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 1, Chandigarh

Shri Vinod Jain, Ludhiana vs. ADIT, CPC/ITO-Ward-7(4), Ludhiana

Mr. Ram Pal Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 5(4), Chandigarh

M/S Magellan Teleservices, Chandigarh vs. ADIT, CPC/JCIT(OSD), Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai

Franch Express Courier Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Kasthuri Medias Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

C Krishniah Chetty & Sons Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

S & G Lifestyles, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru