How many judgments cite (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.?

631 judgments on BharatTax cite (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd. (378 ITR 443), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(1).

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

378 ITR 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 amendment retrospective amendment section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 43b section 2(24)section 36(1)section 43 section 36 section 139(1)section 139

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

M/S R S Cargo, Satna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Processing Centre, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 12/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…me u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad); Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 406 ITR 150 (Ker); CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a), the…

M/S Srbh Ebguneering & Equipment Pvt Ltd Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Maihar Distt Satna(M.P), Satna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT Cir Katni, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 10/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ncome u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)…

Private Eye Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/BANG/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…sment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 ITD 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…

Natural Selections, Baddi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

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

ITA 404/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 404/Chd/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Natural Selections The Dcit, Cpc, बनाम Plot No. 87, Industrial Area, Banglore / Lodimajra, Tehsil Nalagarh Ito, Baddi (Now Baddi)- 174101 Himachal Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajfn0037D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Akashdeep, JCIT

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

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

Sathiapal Engineers (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 610/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 610/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Sathiapal Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner Formerly Known As Sathiapal Vs. Of Income Tax, Engineers India Ltd., New No. 14, Cpc, Bengaluru. Old No. 25, Temple Street, Alagappa Nagar, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aahcs2295P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 26.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Payments.

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(v)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 i…

Sona Fashions Inc, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1217/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Memberassessment Year: 2018-19 Sona Fashions Inc. Vs. Ito, H 9, Mohan Coop. Industrial Ward-29(5), Estate, B1, Mathura Road, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi Pan :Aacfs7353L (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation would only defeat the object and scope of both the provisions viz., 43B and 36(1)(va). Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. KERALA HIGH COURT : [2015] 378 ITR 443 : September 8, 2015 3 | P a g e AY: 2018-19 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN VERSUS M/S MERCHEM LIMITED The distinction drawn to credit the amount of the employer and the employee was with a clear objective and there is no illegality or other legal infirmity in classifying the contributions of employees and employer in the matter of cred…

Shri Indhira Cottons Mills P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 563/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./ I. T. A. No.563/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S. Shri Indhira Cotton Mills P.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P.B No.6 , Jagampet Gardens, Income Tax, Cpc, Chitlapakkam Main Road, Chrompet, Bengaluru. Chennai-600 044. Pan: Aaaci 0899J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 25.08.2022

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…

Ultra Clean and Care Services Pvt. Ltd, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 44/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur25 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ncome u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021, dated 18/11/2021), wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matte…

D.D.Builders Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/CTK/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiad.D.Builders Ltd., Plot No.36-F, Bjb Nagar, Bhubaneswar Pan No.Aabcd 1433 E ………………Assessee Versus Acit, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar ………………..Revenue Shri Kamal Kumar Agrawalla, Ca For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0465/19-20, Dated 18.01.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee That The Only Issue In This Appeal Was Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date As Prescribed Under The Respective Acts But Before The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return. Ld. Ar Placed Before Us A Decision Of The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Odyssey Motors Pvt. Ltd., In Ita

Section 36(1)(va)

…R relied on the following case laws :- i) Unifac Management Services (India)(P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2018] 100 taxmann.com 244 (Madras); ii) CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat); iii) CIT Vs. Merchem Limited, (2015) 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); 4 iv) Pr.CIT Vs. M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd., (2020) 423 ITR 608 (Guj); v) CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., (2019) 410 ITR 0417 (Delhi), vi) Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd., [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13 (Kerala); vii) South India Corporation Ltd., [2015] 58 taxmann.com 208 (Kerala); viii) Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.1312/Del/2020, ord…

Mansoor Aiyaz Ebrahim, Chennai vs. Assistant Dirctor of Incometax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 622/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ/वाल ,लेखा सद4 एवं माननीय +ी संजय शमा8, "ाियक सद4 के सम9। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.621 & 622/Chny/2022 (िनधा8रण वष8 / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Mansoor Aiyaz Ebrahim ADIT, बनाम/ No.1/1 Bishop Garden, Green Ways Road, CPC, Bengalore. Vs. Chennai – 600 028. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAAPE-0488-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri N.V. Narayan…

Mansoor Aiyaz Ebrahim, Chennai vs. Assistant Dirctor of Incometax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 621/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR

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

Tonglit Autogistic Private Limited, Chennai vs. Asst Director of It, CPC Income Tax Department, Banglore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 566/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh. S (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ/वाल ,लेखा सद4 एवं माननीय +ी संजय शमा8, "ाियक सद4 के सम9। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.566/Chny/2022 (िनधा8रण वष8 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tonglit Autogistic Pvt. Ltd. ADIT, बनाम/ Plot No.55, HIG, MGR Salai, NH-1, CPC, Bengalore. Vs. Maraimalai Nagar, Chennai – 603 209. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AADCT-6520-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Ganesh. S…

M/S Sam Streamline Systems P Ltd, Indore vs. The ITO 5 (1), Indore

In the result, these appeals are allowed

ITA 60/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Palash Badole ITO 5(2) Vs. Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: BFZPB6592P Assessee by None Revenue by None Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. SAM Streamline ITO-5(1) Systems P. Ltd., Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAACS7527D Assessee by Ruchira Singhal Revenue by None Assessment Year: 2019-20 Such Media Publication NFA…

Torino Laboratories P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT/ / ACIT 4 (1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Dcit/Acit-4(1), Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabct1347B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. DCIT/ACIT-4(1), Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCT1347B Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement 18.08.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 15.12.2021 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), (Nat…

Danish Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 257/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(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…

Prahlad Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 232/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Miss Shivangi Samdhani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a

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

Moral Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3, Lucknow-New/DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 136/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 44A

…issioner of Income Tax Vs Rai Agro Industries Ltd., (2011) 334 ITR 122, to hold that Section 43B shall apply to both 'contributions' i.e. employers' and employees'. 24. Kerala High Court in recent judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Merchem Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 443, has followed the decision of Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and dissented with the otherwise judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Spectrum Con…

Babian Inn, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 85/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow04 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

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

…mmissioner of IncomeTax Vs Rai Agro Industries Ltd., (2011) 334 ITR 122, to hold that Section 43B shall apply to both 'contributions' i.e. employers' and employees'. 24. Kerala High Court in recent judgment in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Merchem Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 443, has followed the decision of Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and dissented with the otherwise judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Spectrum Consul…

Rajan Banquet Pvt.Ltd., Moradabad vs. ACIT-1, Moradabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1427/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

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

…one is the proper course and any other interpretation would only 3 | P a g e AY: 2020-21 defeat the object and scope of both the provisions viz., 43B and 36(1)(va). Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. KERALA HIGH COURT : [2015] 378 ITR 443 : September 8, 2015 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN VERSUS M/S MERCHEM LIMITED The distinction drawn to credit the amount of the employer and the employee was with a clear objective and there is no illegality or other legal infirmity in classifying the contributions of employees and employer in the matter of crediting the same to the app…

Muthoot Finance Ltd, Kochi vs. The ACIT, Kochi

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

ITA 76/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. R.Sreenivasan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2019) 378 ITR 443 (Ker.), dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the submissions made before the Income Tax Authorities. 6. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdicti…