(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 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.

B.L Educational Society, Solan vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO(Exemption) Ward, Solan

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

ITA 313/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 313/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 B.L. Educational Society, The Dcit, बनाम The Mall, Cpc, Bengaluru, Solan Karnataka "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaab0547L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(v)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…

Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO-Ward-1(5), Ludhiana

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

ITA 297/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 297/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

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

…7-Chd-2021 Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Ludhiana 6 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…

Vtc Transport Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CPC/Jcitosd, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 278/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
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…

M/S J.K.International, Kangra vs. ACIT, Circle, Palampur

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

ITA 301/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri. J.S. Bhasin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B(1)(b)

…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 ide…

M/S Amit Engineers, Baddi vs. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

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

ITA 299/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 299/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-2020 I) M/S Amit Engineers, The Dcit बनाम Villagae Judi Kalan, Circle, Parwanoo, H.P. Baddi, District, Solan & Ii) Himachal Pradesh - 173205 Adit, Cpc, Banglore "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakfa5620L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…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…

Sh. Jasdev Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO-Ward-5(5), Chandigarh

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

ITA 214/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 214/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Jasdev Singh, The Ito, बनाम 234, Sector 46A Ward 5(5), Chandigarh 160046 Chandigarh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, 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) ITA No. 214-Chd-2021 Sh. Jasdev Singh, Chandigarh 6 The impugned ESI/PF disallowance…

M/S Continental Engineering & Power Pvt.Ltd., Mohali vs. ADIT, CPC/ACIT, Circle-6(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 212/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Anil Batra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, 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…

Stirred Creative Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 594/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Susan Mathew, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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…

Sanjeevani Super Sueciality Healthcare Bhopal P Ltd, Bhopal vs. Dy, CIT, CPC, Bengalur, Bengalu

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 116/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2018-19 Sanjeevani Super Speciality Dcit(Cpc) Healthcare Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aarcs8080L Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra Cit-Dr, Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.04.2021 Which Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 16.10.2019 Framed By Dcit,Cpc, Bangalore.

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 39(1)Section 43B

…ue have been given by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Reliance placed on following decisions: Sanjeevani Super Speciality Healthcare Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. 1.Pr. CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 340 (Gujarat) b. CIT vs. Merchem ltd. [2015} 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) c. CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2015) 232 Taxman 241(Kerala) 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Sole issue relates to disallowance of employees contribution of PF/ESIC at Rs.2,27,326/-. We note that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act “any sum received by the assessee…

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 403/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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…

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 402/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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…

Sh. Sankanwar Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO-Ward-VI(3), Ludhiana

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

ITA 294/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 294/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sankanwar Singh, The Assessing Officer, बनाम 9161, Urban Estate, Phase-Ii, Ward Vi(3), Dugri, Ludhiana 141002 Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Fbips7094N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…rom 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. ITA No. 294-Chd-2021 Sankanwar Singh,Ludhiana 6 (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…

Sh. Rajinder Kumar Saini, Baddi vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO, Baddi

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

ITA 291/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Itr As Per Challans Submitted Before Cit(A) & Several Judicial Pronouncements Are In Favour Of The Assessee. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds As May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
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 ide…

Sh. Rajinder Kumar Saini, Baddi vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO, Baddi

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

ITA 290/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Itr As Per Challans Submitted Before Cit(A) & Several Judicial Pronouncements Are In Favour Of The Assessee. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds As May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
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 ide…

Radiant Industries, Ludhiana vs. ITO-Ward-5(3), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 296/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Furnishing The Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. When The Matter Was Taken To The Ld. Cit(A) The Said Disallowance Was Sustained.

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

…ition, the deletion of the amount paid by the Employees’ Contribution beyond due date was deductible by invoking the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 43(B) of the Act. ITA No. 296-Chd-2021 Radiant Industries, Ludhiana 6 (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…

Natraj Dal Mill, Indore vs. ACIT 5 (1), Indore

In the result, Appeal of the assessee namely Natraj Dal Mill in

ITA 153/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2019-20 Natraj Dal Mill Acit 5(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadfn3699P Appellant By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Ashok Somani Dy. Cit, Ps, Indore Bangalore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Agtps5575R Appellant By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gour, Ars Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

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

…particular issue, but agreed that no decisions on this issue have been given by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Reliance placed on following decisions: 1.Pr. CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 340 (Gujarat) b. CIT vs. Merchem ltd. [2015} 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) c. CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2015) 232 Taxman 241(Kerala) 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Sole issue relates to disallowance of employees contribution of PF/ESIC at Rs.1,26,653/-. We note that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act “any sum received by the Natraj D…

Shri Ashok Somani, Indore vs. The Dy CIT, Ps, Bangalore

In the result, Appeal of the assessee namely Natraj Dal Mill in

ITA 131/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2019-20 Natraj Dal Mill Acit 5(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadfn3699P Appellant By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Ashok Somani Dy. Cit, Ps, Indore Bangalore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Agtps5575R Appellant By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gour, Ars Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

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

…particular issue, but agreed that no decisions on this issue have been given by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Reliance placed on following decisions: 1.Pr. CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 340 (Gujarat) b. CIT vs. Merchem ltd. [2015} 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) c. CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2015) 232 Taxman 241(Kerala) 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Sole issue relates to disallowance of employees contribution of PF/ESIC at Rs.1,26,653/-. We note that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act “any sum received by the Natraj D…

Pachouli Wellness Clinic LLP, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Nos.- 999, 1000 and 1011/Del/2021 Global Groupware Solution Ltd. and others 1. Order dated 10.09.2018 vide ITA No. 983/2018 in the case of ITO vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) 2. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 3. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) 4. Sagun Foundry (P.). vs. CIT[2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 5. CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 295/410 ITR 417 (Delhi) 6. Order dated 01.07.2021 in the case of Raodways Private Limited [TS-510- ITAT-2021 (HYD)], ITAT, Hyderabad. 7. Order dated 31.05.2021 of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 1626/Del/2020 in the case of Az…

Naveen Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1011/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Nos.- 999, 1000 and 1011/Del/2021 Global Groupware Solution Ltd. and others 1. Order dated 10.09.2018 vide ITA No. 983/2018 in the case of ITO vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) 2. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 3. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) 4. Sagun Foundry (P.). vs. CIT[2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 5. CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 295/410 ITR 417 (Delhi) 6. Order dated 01.07.2021 in the case of Raodways Private Limited [TS-510- ITAT-2021 (HYD)], ITAT, Hyderabad. 7. Order dated 31.05.2021 of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 1626/Del/2020 in the case of Az…

Global Groupware Solutions Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), New Delhi, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, New Delhi-110002

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1000/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Nos.- 999, 1000 and 1011/Del/2021 Global Groupware Solution Ltd. and others 1. Order dated 10.09.2018 vide ITA No. 983/2018 in the case of ITO vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) 2. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 3. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) 4. Sagun Foundry (P.). vs. CIT[2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 5. CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 295/410 ITR 417 (Delhi) 6. Order dated 01.07.2021 in the case of Raodways Private Limited [TS-510- ITAT-2021 (HYD)], ITAT, Hyderabad. 7. Order dated 31.05.2021 of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 1626/Del/2020 in the case of Az…