(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.

Shri Yogesh Singla, Ludhiana vs. ADIT, CPC/ ITO-Ward-5(4), Ludhiana

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

ITA 234/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
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…

Sh. Kulwaran Singh, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-11(3) Pune/ Current Jurisdictional Assessing Officerito-Ward-4, Patiala

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

ITA 230/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
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…

Sh. Yoginder Pal Singh Grewal, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-11(3)Pune/ Current Jurisdictiona Assessing Officer ITO-Ward-5, Patiala

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

ITA 229/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 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)

…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…

Sh. Yoginder Pal Singh Grewal, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-11(3)Pune/ Current Jurisdictiona Assessing Officer ITO-Ward-5, Patiala

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

ITA 228/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
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…

Shri Gurmeet Pandher, Patiala vs. ITO-Ward-2, Patiala

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

ITA 227/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr & He Also Ignored The Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision In Favour Of Appellant. 2. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals) Has Wrongly Upheld The Disallowance Of Rs 1275040/- Made By Cpc Under Section 143(1) On Debatable Issue. 3. That The Assessee Craves Of Permission To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Grounds Of Appeal With Approval Of The Hon'Ble Bench.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, JCIT
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…

Harsoria Hospitality, Chandigarh vs. ITO-Ward-5(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 226/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr & He Also Ignored The Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision In Favour Of Appellant. 2. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals) Has Wrongly Upheld The Disallowance Of Rs 706790/- Made By Cpc Under Section 143(1) On Debatable Issue. 3. That The Assessee Craves Of Permission To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Grounds Of Appeal With Approval Of The Hon'Ble Bench.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, JCIT
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 Supermech Infrastructure Private Limited, Mohali vs. ITO-Ward-2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 221/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga, Advocate & Shri Rohit KauraFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
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 iden…

Equipment Fabricators, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 23ASection 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.) Page 15 of 16 14. Nuzivedu Swati Coastal Consortium vs. ITO [2015] 62 taxmann.com 258 (Hyderabad - T…

Shri Raja Ram, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO-Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

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

ITA 192/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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 iden…

Shri Raja Ram, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO-Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

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

ITA 191/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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 iden…

Sanchi Management Services Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ITO-Ward-5(2), Chandigarh

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

ITA 190/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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 iden…

Aspiration Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 341/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 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). 8. 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…

Aspiration Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 340/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 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). 8. 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…

M/S. Jana Urban Services for Transformation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 307/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh S Gaddi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri I.C Prabhakar, JCIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 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…

Express Roadways P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5570/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Express Roadway P. Vs. Acit Ltd., Ed-62-B, Madhuban Circle – 8(2) Chowk, Pitampura, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 088 Pan : Aaace 0255 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. N. Poonia, C.A. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…PF & ESI were deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act (the details of such payments are listed at Page 2 of the assessment order). AO thereafter by relying on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) held that the aggregate delayed payment of the employee’s contribution to ESI/PF amounting to Rs.16,58,877/- cannot be allowed as deduction. He accordingly made its addition u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the ord…

Opel Sulz Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

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

ITA 74/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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 iden…

Opel Sulz Private Limited, Bhilwra vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

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

ITA 73/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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 iden…

Santok Sngh Gehlot, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Jodhpur

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

ITA 64/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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 iden…

Wheel O City, Sri Ganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar

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

ITA 63/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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 iden…

Wheel O City, Sri Ganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar

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

ITA 62/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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 iden…