(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.

Shashi Maheshwari, Jodhpur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 58/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…

Arpit Gulecha, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 57/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…

Lubi Gel LLP, Jodhpur vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 69/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor 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 ide…

Lubi Gel LLP, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 68/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor 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 ide…

Bikaner Ceramics Private Limited, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore / ACIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

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

ITA 60/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosianmohangarh Engineers & Vs The Dcit, Construction Company Circle -1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aanfm4741R

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…

Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 59/JODH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosianmohangarh Engineers & Vs The Dcit, Construction Company Circle -1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aanfm4741R

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…

C G Technosoft Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 52/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor 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 ide…

C.G. Technosoft Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

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

ITA 49/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor 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 ide…

M/S Mplex Networks Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3371/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Joijode, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(iv)

…ribunal in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. V. ITO, 189 ITD 676 (Hyd. Trib) wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee placing reliance on the following judgments:- (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119 / 235 Taxmann 378 / 378 ITR 443 (Ker) (ii) CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj) (iii) CIT v. South India Corpn. Ltd. [2000] 108 Taxman 322 / 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT v. Jairam & Sons [2004] 134 Taxman 503 / 269 ITR 285 (Ker) 12. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of the Assessing…

M/S Mplex Networks Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3370/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Joijode, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(iv)

…ribunal in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. V. ITO, 189 ITD 676 (Hyd. Trib) wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee placing reliance on the following judgments:- (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119 / 235 Taxmann 378 / 378 ITR 443 (Ker) (ii) CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj) (iii) CIT v. South India Corpn. Ltd. [2000] 108 Taxman 322 / 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT v. Jairam & Sons [2004] 134 Taxman 503 / 269 ITR 285 (Ker) 12. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of the Assessing…

Ridhi Sidhi Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pali vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 72/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 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…

Ridhi Sidhi Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pali vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 71/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 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…

Manibhadra Udhyog, Pali vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2017-18 Manibhadra Udhyog, Vs. The Dcit, Pali Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aagfm4258G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2021 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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.” 9. On an ident…

Swarup Ram, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jodhpur

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

ITA 66/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Akash Phophalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 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…

Swarup Ram, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jodhpur

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

ITA 65/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Akash Phophalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 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…

Inder Bahadur Gurung, Jodhpur vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, ITO, W-3(2), Ju

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

ITA 55/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Mohan Ram Chaudhary, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Acgpc8070L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Muthia Muruganantham, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Abipm1535F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inder Bahadur Gurung, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Pan No: Aempg9230N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Taparia and Miss Divya, CAsFor 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…

Muthia Muruganantham, Jodhpur vs. Jurisdicational Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

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

ITA 54/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Mohan Ram Chaudhary, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Acgpc8070L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Muthia Muruganantham, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Abipm1535F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inder Bahadur Gurung, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Pan No: Aempg9230N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Taparia and Miss Divya, CAsFor 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…

Mohan Ram Chaudhary, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Jodhpur

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

ITA 51/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Mohan Ram Chaudhary, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Acgpc8070L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Muthia Muruganantham, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Abipm1535F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inder Bahadur Gurung, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Pan No: Aempg9230N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Taparia and Miss Divya, CAsFor 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…

The Chodavaram Co-Operative Sugars Limited, Chodavaram vs. The Dy.CIT/ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 25/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (Through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 25 & 28/VIZ/2021 (Asst. Year : 2019-20 & 2016-17) The Chodavaram Vs. 1. Asst. Director of Income Co-operative Sugars Ltd., Tax, CPC, Bangalore. Chodavaram Mandalam, Govada Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam. 2. ITO, Ward-5(2), Visakhapatnam. PAN No. AAAAT 4375 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCA Department by : Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 0…

Reliant Investigation and Security Services, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.144/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Reliant Investigation & Security Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Ward-2(5) Lig-C-556, Ground Floor Visakhapatnam Sagar Nagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aakfr4627C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…