(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.

Mohammed Darus Salam, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Mohammed Darus Salam, Vs Dcit, 15/5A, Old Chandrawal, Civil Lines, Cpc, New Delhi-110054. Bengaluru. Pan-Afgpd5866E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manu K.Giri, Adv., Shri Aseem Chawla, Adv. & Ms. Sonia Dudeja, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…the case of PCIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. 115 taxmann.com 340. The issue is also covered against the assessee by CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 issued by the Department. A similar view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd (2015) 378 ITR 443. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 Order dated 06/09/2018 has also decided this issue in favour of Revenue and not followed its earlier judgement of AIMIL Ltd 321 ITR 508. The ITAT Delhi in the case of Eagle Trans Shipping & Logistics (India) (P.) Ltd. 109 taxmann.com 426 vide order dated 25/07 20…

Shri Inderjit Bajaj, Jalandhar vs. Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 80/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income; B) Amendment Made By Finance Act, 2021 In Section 36(Va) & Section 43B Is Not Retrospective But Is Prospective Applicable W.E.F. A.Y. 2021-22. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 48,99,708/- Made By The Ao Representing Delay In Remittance Of Employees Contribution Towards Provident Fund & Esi Disregarding The Various Decisions Of The Jurisdictional Hon'Ble Itat, Amritsar & Hon'Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court Relied Upon By The Assessee Which Are Binding On The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 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…

M/S P. Ram Chand & Company, Jalandhar vs. Deputy/ Asssistanat Comissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 79/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Bhagat,CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(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 Balson Engineers, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Jalandhar

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

ITA 78/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Bhagat, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, 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…

M/S Perfect Polymers, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (3), Jalandhar

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

ITA 77/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Bhagat, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, 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…

M/S. Sterling Urban Developments Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sterling Urban Developments Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, 8, Level – 5 – Prestige Nebula, Circle – 6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp To It Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 244 42019] 260 Taxman 60/[2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad.), CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchant Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker). 7. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill 2021 was only declaratory / clarificatory in nature and th…

Sonicwall Technology Systems India Private Limited ( Formerly Known As Dell Software India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Ward-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 419/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sonicwall Technology Systems India Vs. Ito, Private Limited Ward International Taxation – 1(2), (Formerly Known As Dell Software India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Embassy Tech Village 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Block-F, Devarabisanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaacq 1441 N Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 13Section 139Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchant Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.). 7. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill 2021 was only declaratory / clarificatory in nature and there therefore was applicable with retrospective effect by necessary intendment of deeming nature e…

Everestims Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 408/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

….) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 244 42019] 260 Taxman 60/[2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad.), CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.). (iv) B.S. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 45742008] 171 Taxman 304 (MP), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by t…

Everestims Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 407/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

….) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 244 42019] 260 Taxman 60/[2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad.), CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.). (iv) B.S. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 45742008] 171 Taxman 304 (MP), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by t…

Zephyrsun Electro Mech Private Limited, Jaisalmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaisalmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Manish Vyas, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 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 identi…

Historic Resort Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

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

ITA 91/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…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…

Arpit Gulecha, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO, Ward-1(1), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Smt. Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…to be applicable only with prospective effect from 1.4.2021, I hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identi…

Country Art and Craft LLP, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/JODH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriRajendra Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT 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 identic…

M/S Rampa Motor, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 (5), Jalandhar

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

ITA 76/ASR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vigh, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 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…

M/S Jalandhar Leather ( India) Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 75/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Bhagat, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(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…

Puja Enterprises, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Jalandhar

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

ITA 73/ASR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vigh, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 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…

Sony India Software Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 398/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: JCIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; Page 8 of 9 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. 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. D…

Mahesh Agencies, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 522/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Mahesh Agencies, Hyderabad. Pan Aayfm3615M …..Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.C. Devdas. Respondent By : Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2018-19 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 31.07.2020 Passed In Case No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…o be applicable only with prospective effect from 1.4.2021, We 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 laws. (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) 4 4. The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore. 5. This ass…

M/S. J K Foot Wear, Bengaluru vs. Centralized Processing Center, Benaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 395/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…sment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 lTD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) 14. Nuzivedu Swati Coastal Consortium vs. ITO [2015] 62 taxmann.com 258 (Hyderabad - Trib.) 15. DCIT…

M/S. J K Foot Wear, Bengaluru vs. Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…sment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 lTD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) 14. Nuzivedu Swati Coastal Consortium vs. ITO [2015] 62 taxmann.com 258 (Hyderabad - Trib.) 15. DCIT…