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.

Spr Construction Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 520/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Respondent: 21.07.2022

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 25Section 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: 13 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 wit…

R.Ramakrishnan, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Bengaluru

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

ITA 513/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 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…

M/S Autotech Industries [ India ] Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 500/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022

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

Airtec Systems, Coimbatore vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 493/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…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…

Airtec Systems, Coimbatore vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 492/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…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…

United Shippers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7801/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhunited Shippers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Prospect Income Tax-3(3) Chambers, D.N. Road, Air India Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0764C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Aakash Marthak &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ITA No.7801/Mum/2019 A.Y.2016-17 1 United Shippers Limited Vs. DCIT-3(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER United Shippers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Prospect Income Tax-3(3) Chambers, D.N. Road, Air India Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACU0764C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Aakash Marthak & Bhupendra Karkhanis Respondent by : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari Date of Hearing 05.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2…

P. Rajesh Ship Breaking Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1980/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhp. Rajesh Ship Breaking Vs. Acit, Circle 4(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., 61/2 Lakri Aayakar Bhavan, Bunder, Rey Road, M.K. Road, Darukhana, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacp7197G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: C.V. JainFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

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

…ITA No.1980/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 1 P. Rajesh Ship Breaking Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 4(3)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER P. Rajesh Ship Breaking Vs. ACIT, Circle 4(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., 61/2 Lakri Aayakar Bhavan, Bunder, Rey Road, M.K. Road, Darukhana, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACP7197G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : C.V. Jain Respondent by : C.T. Mathews Date of Hearing 30.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 13.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh…

Ravindra Nath Sahni, New Delhi vs. ACIT CPC, New Delhi

ITA 1784/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1784/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ravindra Nath Saini, Vs Acit, 51, Pashim Marg, Vsant Vihar, Cpc, New Delhi-110057 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abjps2875D Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Batra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Batra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shankar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…mmissioner of Income-Tax v. 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 v. Merchem Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 443, has followed the decision of Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax v. Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and dissented with the otherwise judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Spectrum Co…

Tuff Guard Force Private Limited, Ghatkopar West vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2450/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Tuff Guard Force Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income 207, Kails Esplanade, Lbs Marg, Vs. Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Ghatkopar (W), Delhi. Mumbai 400 086 Pan No.Aabcb4892K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri D.B. Shah. Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022. O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.28.01.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri D.B. Shah

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438Section 43B

…Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.). 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 its…

Jaksons Agencies, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack11 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Section 2Section 28Section 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 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 ob jective 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 appr…

Bhupendra Nath Pandey, Varanasi vs. ACIT, R - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 31/VNS/2021[2018-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2016

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Nath Pandey Assistant Director Of Income 6-159/27, Kashi Enclave V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Colony, Pahadiya Sarnath, Processing Center , Varanasi-221007, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Acit, Range-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Ajfpp1273J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak K Gujarati, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

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

…unds , keeping in view provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Explanation 1 and Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act. Similarly, 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 deciding 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 is…

Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Ltd., Varanasi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 29/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Lawkush Sharma, Sonebhadra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (5), Sonebhadra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 23/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K.R.Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

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

M/S Rugs Mart, Varanasi vs. DCIT, Circle - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

ITA 21/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.N.Jaiswal,AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

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

DCIT, CC -3 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Talentpro India Hr Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 459/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा01 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम1। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.459/Chny/2020 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2017-18) DCIT M/s. Talentrpro India HR Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), New No.64, Old No.30, Ethiraj Salai, Vs. Chennai. Egmore, Chennai-600 008. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABCP-9823-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Assessee by : None "…

Nupal Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam vs. The ITO, Ernakulam

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

ITA 18/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Anil K.Nayar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR

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

…ited 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2019) 378 ITR 443 (Ker.)]. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Managing Director of the assessee, Sri.Padmanabhan Krishnakumar, has filed an adjournment application stating that he is indispose, however, the learned AR representing the assessee Sri.Anil K Nayar was present. Therefore, the adjournment application was re…

Padmanabhan Krishnakumar, Ernakulam vs. The ITO, Ernakulam

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

ITA 17/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Anil K.Nayar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

…. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2019) 378 ITR 443 (Ker.)]. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an adjournment application stating that he is indispose, however, the learned AR representing the assessee Sri.Anil K Nayar was present. Therefore, the adjournment application was rejected and the matter was heard on merits. The learned…

Padmanabhan Krishnakumar, Ernakulam vs. The ITO, Kochi

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

ITA 16/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Anil K.Nayar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

The Parakode Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Adoor vs. The ITO, Kollam

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

ITA 115/COCH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Parakode Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward 4, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Parakode, Adoor Karbala Junction Pathanamthitta 691554 Kollam 691001 Pan – Aaajt1587B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80ASection 80P

…The employees contribution is not covered by Section 43B of the Act and the amendment made is retrospective in nature. She also submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had decided the issue in favour the Revenue in the case of Mechem Ltd. (2019) 378 ITR 443 (Ker). She further submitted that the case law quoted by the assessee in its grounds of appeal is distinguishable on facts of the case. 6. After hearing the learned D.R. and going through the facts of the case we find that the assessee filed its return of income on 15.01.2020 after claiming deduction under Section 80P of the Act which is beyond…

Sam Human Resources P Ltd, Indore vs. The ITO 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 182/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 2Section 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: 2019-20 Sam Human Resources (P) Ltd. ITO-3(1), 1-DH, Scheme No.74-C Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAYCS1775M Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal, AR Revenue by Shri Aditya Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 29.06.2022 O R D E R PER B.M. BIYANI, A.M.: THIS APPEAL: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against…