JCIT v. ITC Ltd.

112 ITD 57Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#4123 most cited

What is JCIT v. ITC Ltd. authority for?

Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with deductions only upon actual payment, does not apply to the employees' contribution to provident fund or other welfare funds, as the same is governed by Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The deduction for employees' contribution is allowed if paid within the due date specified in the relevant Acts, including the grace period.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,402 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

JCIT v. ITC Ltd. · 112 ITD 57 · Section 43B · Section 36(1)(va) · employees contribution to PF · provident fund · deduction · actual payment · due date · grace period

Issues it is cited on

companyindiatotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing JCIT v. ITC Ltd.

2M Ateliers & Design Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. DIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1357/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm 2M Ateliers & Design Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Dit, Cpc 62, Evergreen Industrial Estate, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 001 Shakti Mill Lane, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai-400 011

For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…lso held that section 43B is applicable only to employer’s contribution and not to employee’s contribution as in the case of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the co-ordinate benches which is as under: • JCIT vs. ITC Ltd. (ITAT, SB – Kol) 112 ITD 57 • IMP Power Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 107 TTJ 522 • Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 13 (Kerala HC) • Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) 260 Taxman 60 (Madras HC) wherein it has held that section 43B was not applicable to employee’s contribution towards PF and ESIC. 7. The assessee is in…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. the Tinplate Company of India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1595/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139(1)Section 43B

…is case, the AO has made disallowance on surmises and conjectures and on estimated basis which is not sustainable in the law as has been held by the following decisions: i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [26 ITR 775 (SC)] ii) JCIT vs. ITC Ltd., [2008] 112 ITD 57 (Kolkata) iii) Monarch Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Ahd) [54 TTJ 405] iv) Chaudhary Hammer Works Ltd. vs. DIT [ITA No. 5333/Del/2011] AY: 2010-11 The Tinplate Company of India Ltd. v) Universal Construction Machinery and Equipments Ltd. vs. ACIT (Pun) [ITA No. 975/PN/2013 and ITA Nos. 1465 & 1466/PN/2013] Accordingly we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A)…

The Tinplate Company of India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1070/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139(1)Section 43B

…is case, the AO has made disallowance on surmises and conjectures and on estimated basis which is not sustainable in the law as has been held by the following decisions: i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [26 ITR 775 (SC)] ii) JCIT vs. ITC Ltd., [2008] 112 ITD 57 (Kolkata) iii) Monarch Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Ahd) [54 TTJ 405] iv) Chaudhary Hammer Works Ltd. vs. DIT [ITA No. 5333/Del/2011] AY: 2010-11 The Tinplate Company of India Ltd. v) Universal Construction Machinery and Equipments Ltd. vs. ACIT (Pun) [ITA No. 975/PN/2013 and ITA Nos. 1465 & 1466/PN/2013] Accordingly we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A)…

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 7644/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 144C(5)Section 35DSection 92C(2)

…ce for year 1 is allowed/ disallowed in year 2. 56. In support of contention that provisions on best estimate should be allowed as deduction Ld. AR relied on following case laws: - (i). Rotork Controls India (P) Limited (314 ITR 62)(SC) (ii). JCIT vs ITC LTD (112 ITD 57) (KOL SB) (iii). Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT (245 ITR 428)(SC) 57. Further, relying on following case laws, Ld.AR submitted that the disallowance of excess and short year end provisions is revenue-neutral accordingly, no addition on account of the same is warranted. (i). Excel Industries Limited (358 ITR 295) (Supreme Court); (ii). Nagri Mills Ltd…

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das
Section 115OSection 14A

…see failed to produce realizable value of such stock. Accordingly, assessee's contention of damaged stock being valued at Nil was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Reliance was also placed on the decision of JCIT v. ITC, ITAT Kolkata Special Bench (2008) 112 ITD 57 and the relevant portion of the decision was also extracted in the Assessing Officer's order. (iv). Further in the past assessment years, the value of damaged stock was considered at 0.5% of the closing stock for finished goods, post giving consequential effect 20 ITA NO. 655 & 749/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Asian Paints Ltd., in the opening st…

Ajeet Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act will be allowed. The provisions of Section 43B which are applicable to employer's contribution do not apply to employee's contribution and the same has been upheld in the following cases: JCIT v. ITC Ltd. (ITAT, SB- Kol) 112 ITD 57 The relevant extract of the order is provided below for ease of reference: "55.1 From the combined reading of sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va), the position emerges that any contribution made by the employees to any Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund, Employees' State Insurance Fund or any other fund for the welfare of such employees received by t…

Computer Clinic India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1571/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Computer Clinic India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 301-A, Sagar Complex, Ward-6(2), New Rajdhani Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacc5384N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rahul Kant, Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2022

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(X)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…Sahakari 298 ITR 149 (Bom). Accordingly, AIMIL cannot be followed and the deductibility of employees' contribution has to be seen only with reference to s. 36(1)(va) (together with grace period) (Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals (included in file) & ITC Ltd 112 ITD 57 (Kol)(SB) followed)" The issue of allowability of Employees Contribution to P. F. (or any other welfare fund) has also been taken up in the Finance Bill, 2021. The Memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Bill, 2021 states as under: "Section 43B specifies the list of deductions that are admissible under the Act only upon their actual paymen…

Embio Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal for Ay 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2460/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhembio Limited Acit-15(1)(2), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Embio Limited Acit-15(1)(1), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Respondent By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 254(1)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 37(1)Section 72ASection 72A(2)(iii)

…he assessee relied upon the decisions of (i) Tube Investments of India Ltd. vs. CIT 260 ITR 94 (Madras HC) (ii) CIT vs. Yamuna Digital Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 238 ITR 717 (AP HC) (ii) ACIT vs. Parabolic Drugs Ltd. 141 TTJ 662 (Del. ITAT) & (iv) JCIT vs. ITC 112 ITD 57 (Hyd ITAT). 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. DR further submits that the claim of assessee was not approved by competent authority; thereby the Assessing Officer disallowed 200% of excess claim made by assessee. ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited 9. We have considered t…

Gvk Power & Infrastructure Limited, Kadiyam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.553/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Gvk Power & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-48, Gvk Power Plant Income Tax Jegurupadu, Kadiyammandal Circle-2(1) East Godavari Rajamahendravaram [Pan :Aaacj5599A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओ रसे/ Appellant By Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 5

…nvolve the participation of various institutions would have direct or indirect impact on the assessee's business and the expenditure incurred on such events is business expenditure. The case laws relied upon by the assessee in the case of JCIT Vs. ITC Limited 112 ITD 57 (Kolkata) (Special Bench) and CIT Vs.Lake Place Hotels and Motors Pvt. Ltd. 293 ITR 281 (Raj) have also taken the similar view. Therefore, we hold that the sponsorship amount is a business expenditure, which required to be allowed as deduction and accordingly, we delete the addition made by the A.O. and allow the appeal of the assessee.” Since the…

ACIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Sr. Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…(1) for filing the ROI. The AO & CIT(A) disallowed the payment u/s. 36(1)(va) read with s. 2(24)(x). Before the Tribunal, the department justified the disallowance by relying on Ashika Stock Broking Ltd [ 139 TTJ 192 (Kol)] ( which in turn relied on ITC Ltd [ 112 ITD 57 (Kol)(SB) where it was held that s. 43B does not apply to employee’s contribution). However, the Tribunal declined to follow that law and allowed the appeal by relying on Sabari Enterprises [298 ITR 141 (Kar) and P.M. Electronics Ltd [ 220 CTR 635 (Del) where it was held that s. 43B applied also to employees’ contribution to ESI and PF and that if…

Luthra & Luthra Law Offices New Delhi, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 802/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2010-11 Luthra & Luthra Law Offices Jcit 9Th Floor & 103, Range-37 Vs. Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 001 Pan Aabfl3712B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mangal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…hance corporate image of the firm among the industry dignitaries who attended the event, and thus it was a business expenditure. In support of the claim, he relied on the decision of the special bench of Tribunal in the case of JCIT Kolkatta Vs ITC Ltd (2008) 112 ITD 57 ( Kolkatta) (SB). 14. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that despite decrease in gross receipt, there was 350% increase over the conference expenses and on being specifically pointed out by the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to justify the expenses of Rs. 13,68,222/-as incurred wholly an…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Srinagar vs. M/S. J&K Project Construction, Srinagar

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 176/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ibility and, in fact, more stringent than that stipulated u/s. 43B, the need to travel to the latter would not arise where the condition per s. 36(1)(va) is not met. The said view finds expression in the decisions by the tribunal in Jt. CIT v. ITC Ltd. [2008] 112 ITD 57 (Kol) (SB); ITO v. LKP Securities Ltd. [2013] 36 CCH 93 (Mum), and G.K. Management Services (India) Ltd. (in ITA No. 3316/Mds./2016, dated 31.08.2017). The decision in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC), which is followed by different High Courts, claiming the same as covering the issue under reference, is, again, not…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Srinagar vs. M/S. J&K Project Construction, Srinagar

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 175/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ibility and, in fact, more stringent than that stipulated u/s. 43B, the need to travel to the latter would not arise where the condition per s. 36(1)(va) is not met. The said view finds expression in the decisions by the tribunal in Jt. CIT v. ITC Ltd. [2008] 112 ITD 57 (Kol) (SB); ITO v. LKP Securities Ltd. [2013] 36 CCH 93 (Mum), and G.K. Management Services (India) Ltd. (in ITA No. 3316/Mds./2016, dated 31.08.2017). The decision in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC), which is followed by different High Courts, claiming the same as covering the issue under reference, is, again, not…

M/S. Jammu & Kashmir Projects Construction, Jammu vs. The Assessing Officer, Srinagar

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 101/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ibility and, in fact, more stringent than that stipulated u/s. 43B, the need to travel to the latter would not arise where the condition per s. 36(1)(va) is not met. The said view finds expression in the decisions by the tribunal in Jt. CIT v. ITC Ltd. [2008] 112 ITD 57 (Kol) (SB); ITO v. LKP Securities Ltd. [2013] 36 CCH 93 (Mum), and G.K. Management Services (India) Ltd. (in ITA No. 3316/Mds./2016, dated 31.08.2017). The decision in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC), which is followed by different High Courts, claiming the same as covering the issue under reference, is, again, not…

M/S. Jammu & Kashmir Projects Construction, Jammu & Kashmir vs. The Assessing Officer, Srinagar

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 100/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ibility and, in fact, more stringent than that stipulated u/s. 43B, the need to travel to the latter would not arise where the condition per s. 36(1)(va) is not met. The said view finds expression in the decisions by the tribunal in Jt. CIT v. ITC Ltd. [2008] 112 ITD 57 (Kol) (SB); ITO v. LKP Securities Ltd. [2013] 36 CCH 93 (Mum), and G.K. Management Services (India) Ltd. (in ITA No. 3316/Mds./2016, dated 31.08.2017). The decision in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC), which is followed by different High Courts, claiming the same as covering the issue under reference, is, again, not…

Gvr Power & Infrastructure Limited, Kadiyam vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 530/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal
Section 92C

…ructure Ltd., Jegurupadu of various institutions would have direct or indirect impact on the assessee’s business and the expenditure incurred on such events is business expenditure. The case laws relied upon by the assessee in the case of JCIT Vs. ITC Limited 112 ITD 57 (Kolkata) (Special Bench) and CIT Vs.Lake Place Hotels and Motors Pvt. Ltd. 293 ITR 281 (Raj) have also taken the similar view. Therefore, we hold that the sponsorship amount is a business expenditure, which required to be allowed as deduction and accordingly, we delete the addition made by the A.O. and allow the appeal of the assessee. 18. Gro…

Gateway Terminals India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3595/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3595/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Ltd., Income Tax, 5(1), V. Gti House, Jawaharlal Nehru Aaykar Bhavan, Port, M.K. Road, Sheva, District Uran, Mumbai. Navi Mumbai – 400 707. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccg1899E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran NisarFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…laced along with the invoices in respect to these expenses. It was submitted that these are not capital expenditure and no enduring benefit has been obtained by the assessee. The assessee relied upon decision of tribunal in the case of JCIT v. ITC Ltd. (2008) 112 ITD 57 (kol. Trib.). With respect to ground No. 3, it is submitted that the A.O. disallowed 25% of total expenses on ad-hoc basis which is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel drew our attention to the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted that corporate gifts to the tune of Rs. 2,07,808/- were incurred for giving gifts to clients on…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4374/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner of 122, Maker Chambers, III, Income-tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements tax-range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6th floor, Chambers, III, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-40…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3360/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner of 122, Maker Chambers, III, Income-tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements tax-range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6th floor, Chambers, III, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-40…

ITO 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Tricom India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4981/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4981/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit V. Sudha Shah
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

…rt." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the judicial pronouncements in DCIT vs Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(2011) 10 Taxmann.com 26 (Kol.) and JCIT Vs ITC Ltd(2008) (112 ITD 57 (Kol.) (SB), wherein after differentiating the judgment in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd., it was held that deductibility of Employee's Contribution payments to PF & ESIC is only governed by the provisions of section 36(1 )(va) and that the provisions of section 43B do not apply to the impugned payments". 5. The appellant prays that the order of…