(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.

Ippili Srinivasa Rao, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.133/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Ippili Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.21-3-199/4 Ward-2 Ippiliveedhi Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Bijps7510K] (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…

Focus Trans Tech Shipping Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Range-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.132/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S Focus Trans Tech Shipping Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Private Ltd. Circle-3(1) 402, 9-29-19/A, Waltair Heights Visakhapatnam Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcf3074H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2021 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, 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…

S.V. .Engineering Constructions India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S S.V.Engineering Constructions Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax India (P) Ltd. Circle-3(1) B-Block, 2Nd Floor Visakhapatnam Vuda Udyog Bhavan Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aancs4420J] (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 सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/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…

Vani Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

The appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 83/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…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. No. 83/VIZ/2021 (Asst. Year : 2015-16) M/s. Vani Constructions, Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1) Flat No. 301, Satyam Plaza, Visakhapatnam. 3rd Lane, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. PAN No. AAKFV 5316 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri I.Kama Sastry, FCA. Department by : Shri V. Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 09/09/2021. Date of pronouncement : 23/09/2021. O R D E R PER BENCH…

The Chodavaram Co-Operative Sugars Limited, Chodavaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Visakhapatnam

ITA 28/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

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…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…dras High Court in the case of Industrial Security and Intelligence Private Limited (supra). The Revenue brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Madras High Court , decision(s) of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443(Ker.) and also decision in the case of Popular Vehicles and Services Private Limited v. CIT reported in (2018) 96 taxmann.com 13(Ker.), wherein this issue is decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in favour of Revenue and with this background, Hon'ble Madras High Court remanded the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…dras High Court in the case of Industrial Security and Intelligence Private Limited (supra). The Revenue brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Madras High Court , decision(s) of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443(Ker.) and also decision in the case of Popular Vehicles and Services Private Limited v. CIT reported in (2018) 96 taxmann.com 13(Ker.), wherein this issue is decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in favour of Revenue and with this background, Hon'ble Madras High Court remanded the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of…

Navigators Logistics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-17(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5973/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Navigators Logistics Ltd, Vs. Acit, D-123, 3Rd Floor, Saket, New Circle-17(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccn0168R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(X)Section 36Section 43B

…at Rs. 10632820/-. 3. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld CIT(A) who dismissed the same relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and of Hon’ble Kerala High Court CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd 378 ITR 443. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Despite notice to the assessee none appeared. Therefore, the issue is decided on the merits of the case as per information available on record. 5. The ld DR vehemently supported the order of the ld AO and ld CIT(A). 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of t…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…adras High Court in the case of Industrial Security and Intelligence Private Limited(supra). The Revenue brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Madras High Court , decision(s) of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443(Ker.) and also decision in the case of Popular Vehicles and Services Private Limited v. CIT reported in (2018) 96 taxmann.com 13(Ker.), wherein this issue is decided by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in favour of Revenue and with this background, Hon’ble Madras High Court remanded the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ing in view provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Explanation 1 and Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act. Similarly, :- 68 -: Hon’ble Kerala High Court has also decided this issue in favour of Revenue in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443(Ker. HC) and also in Popular Vehicles and Services Private Limited v. CIT (2018) 406 ITR 150 (Ker.HC). While decising the appeal in the case of Merchem Limited(supra) in favour of Revenue on this issue, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that deduction on account of employees contribution towards PF/ESI can only be allowed if the said amount i…

Kerala State Electronics Dev Corpn Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 688/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Ms.Rohini Thampy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 36(1)(va)

…the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. 3. At the very outset, we noticed that the issue raised in this appeal is covered against the assessee by the judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited [(2015) 378 ITR 443 (Ker.)], and Popular 2 M/s.Kerala State Electronics Dev.Corpn Ltd. Vehicles & Services Private Limited v. CIT [(2018) 406 ITR 150 (Ker.)], wherein it has been clearly said that the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI paid beyond the due date prescribed under the respective Acts could not be eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act. I…

Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd, Trivandrum vs. ACIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 718/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Rajiv RFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 36(1)(va)

…e due date prescribed under the respective Acts. 6. At the very outset, we noticed that the issue raised in these appeals are covered against the assessee by the judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited [(2015) 378 ITR 443 (Ker.)], and Popular Vehicles & Services Private Limited v. CIT [(2018) 406 ITR 150 (Ker.)], wherein it has been clearly said that the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI paid beyond the due date prescribed under the respective Acts could not be eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdi…

Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 717/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Rajiv RFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 36(1)(va)

…e due date prescribed under the respective Acts. 6. At the very outset, we noticed that the issue raised in these appeals are covered against the assessee by the judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited [(2015) 378 ITR 443 (Ker.)], and Popular Vehicles & Services Private Limited v. CIT [(2018) 406 ITR 150 (Ker.)], wherein it has been clearly said that the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI paid beyond the due date prescribed under the respective Acts could not be eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdi…

Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 716/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sri.Rajiv RFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 36(1)(va)

…e due date prescribed under the respective Acts. 6. At the very outset, we noticed that the issue raised in these appeals are covered against the assessee by the judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited [(2015) 378 ITR 443 (Ker.)], and Popular Vehicles & Services Private Limited v. CIT [(2018) 406 ITR 150 (Ker.)], wherein it has been clearly said that the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI paid beyond the due date prescribed under the respective Acts could not be eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdi…

Accme (Urvashi Pumps) Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 316/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 316/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke M/S. Accme (Urvashi Pumps) Engineers (P) Ltd. The Ito Vs. A-407, A/A Road No. 14 Vki Area, Ward- 4(2) Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aabca 5655 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respo Ndent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rohan Sogani, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 27 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 24-01-2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 1,53,053/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…tage Industries vs ITO (ITA No. 983/JP/2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-14). 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below and also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Mercham Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Ker.). 3.4 We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant materials available on record. At the outset, we note that identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Cottage Industries vs ITO (supra) in para 2 as under:- ‘’2. The only issue in this appeal is regarding disallowance of employees cont…

Excel Academy of Security Training Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1797/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleexcel Academy Of Security Vs. Ito, Ward-17(2), Training Private Limited, Hyderabad. 6-3-652, A/3, 1St Floor Kautilya, Amrutha Estates, Nims Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aabce 2896 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri ASRSS Siva Prasad–ARFor Respondent: Shri AC Rout – Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…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…

Selva Gold Covering Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 693/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 11.11.2019
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

…ned C.I.T.(Appeals) is not justified in relying on the unfavourable decision rendered by the Gujarath High Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs Gujarath State Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) and Kerala High Court's decision in the case of C.l.T.Vs Merchem Ltd. (378 ITR 443) alone to confirm the addition. 5. The learned C.l.T.(Appeals) is not justified in relying on the Board's Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015/ He failed to note that the Board's Circular is contrary to the principles of law established. 6. The learned C.l.T.(Appeals) failed to note that clause (b) of Section 43B also includes Employees contrib…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Emmar Logistics Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 463/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Kameswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 2(24)(x)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…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Emmar Logistics Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 462/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Kameswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 2(24)(x)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…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. G. Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 509/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-4(1), Vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam D.No. 49-54/16/4/1/13, Kalyan Residence, B.S. Layout, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aapcs 7844 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Kameswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…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…