Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT

305 ITR 103Supreme Court of India2008#2147 most cited

What is Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

An intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) cannot make adjustments for debatable issues that require detailed scrutiny, such as the disallowance of delayed employee contributions to ESI/PF. Appellate authorities also have the power to entertain fresh claims made by an assessee, even if these were not raised in the original or revised return of income.

54

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT · 305 ITR 103 · Section 143(1)(a) · intimation adjustments · debatable issues · delayed ESI PF contributions · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · appellate authority fresh claim · Goetze India principle · summary assessment scope · employee contribution deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 143(1)(a)Section 139Section 142Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 3(b)section 147(1)section 143(1)(a)(iv)section 143(1a)section 43(b)section 143(1)(a)(v)section 143(1)(a)(ii)section 36(1)(iv)section 34(1)(iv)section 36(va)section 43b(b)actual payment basis

Judgments citing Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT

SUNIL KUMAR,ALWAR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3, REWARI

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 7634/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7634/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Sunil Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hill View Apartment, K-001, Ward-3, Neemrana, Behror, Alwar, Rewari, Rajasthan-301707 Haryana-123401 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ccmpk7200C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081206915(1) Dated 26.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) R.W.S. 264 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…on 143(1)(a) of the Act 1961. In support of the contention, learned counsel would rely upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2008] 170 Taxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) and in the matter of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 208 He further submits that since on the relevant date of passing of intimation order, the issue being highly debatable, the Assessing Officer ought not to have resorted to the provision under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

…uthority is\nentertainable even if the same is not claimed in the original return of income, nor assessee\nhas filed a revised return of income to make such claim.\"\nAlso refer Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 170\nTaxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) (para 3), Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman\n1/284 ITR 323 (SC) (para 3), Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 25\ntaxmann.com 123/210 Taxman 539/349 ITR 404 (Bom.) (para 6)\n8. Invalid Denial of Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) Merely for Delay/Non-Filing of\nReturn: 8.1It is respectfully submitted that the denial of de…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

…uthority is\nentertainable even if the same is not claimed in the original return of income, nor assessee\nhas filed a revised return of income to make such claim.\"\nAlso refer Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 170\nTaxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) (para 3), Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman\n1/284 ITR 323 (SC) (para 3), Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 25\ntaxmann.com 123/210 Taxman 539/349 ITR 404 (Bom.) (para 6)\n8. Invalid Denial of Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) Merely for Delay/Non-Filing of\nReturn: 8.1It is respectfully submitted that the denial of de…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

…uthority is\nentertainable even if the same is not claimed in the original return of income, nor assessee\nhas filed a revised return of income to make such claim.\"\nAlso refer Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 170\nTaxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) (para 3), Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman\n1/284 ITR 323 (SC) (para 3), Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 25\ntaxmann.com 123/210 Taxman 539/349 ITR 404 (Bom.) (para 6)\n8. Invalid Denial of Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) Merely for Delay/Non-Filing of\nReturn: 8.1It is respectfully submitted that the denial of de…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

…hority is\nentertainable even if the same is not claimed in the original return of income, nor assessee\nhas filed a revised return of income to make such claim.\"\n\nAlso refer Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 170\nTaxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) (para 3), Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman\n1/284 ITR 323 (SC) (para 3), Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 25\ntaxmann.com 123/210 Taxman 539/349 ITR 404 (Bom.) (para 6)\n\n8. Invalid Denial of Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) Merely for Delay/Non-Filing of\nReturn: 8.1It is respectfully submitted that the denial of…

DONDAPATI SUDHAKARA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 701/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the case of CIT Vs. GVK Industries Ltd. [2023] 147 Taxman.com 281 (Telangana). Also, support was drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kvaverner John Brown Engg (India) (P.) Ltd, Vs. ACIT [2008] 305 ITR 103 (SC). 7. Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal, as to whether or not the A.O., CPC, Bangalore, prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), could, 6 Dondapati Sudhakara Rao vide an intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Ac…

RAJENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI,DELHI vs. AO, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 3225/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3225/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac 341, Heritage Tower, Plot No. 1, Income Tax Officer, Sector-3, Dwarka, Ward-56(3), New Delhi-110078 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abppt7714C Assessee By: Sh. Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074785307(1) Dated 20.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Kumar TripathiFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 3225/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Vs CIT(A)/NFAC 341, Heritage Tower, Plot No. 1, Income Tax Officer, Sector-3, Dwarka, Ward-56(3), New Delhi-110078 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABPPT7714C Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. IT…

BRAHMA CHANDRA YADAV,UTTAR PRADESH vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER RANGE 17, WARD 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3034/DEL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roybrahma Chandra Yadav Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing 1G 201 Awho Township, Officer Range-17, Gurjinder Vihar, Greater Ward 2(1)(1), Cgo, Noida, Gautam Buddha Complex-I Purani Hapur Nagar, Up-201310 Chungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abfpy5867K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…1 Brahma Chandra Yadav THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Brahma Chandra Yadav Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing 1G 201 AWHO Township, Officer Range-17, Gurjinder Vihar, Greater Ward 2(1)(1), CGO, Noida, Gautam Buddha Complex-I Purani Hapur Nagar, UP-201310 Chungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ABFPY5867K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Hemant Jain, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.11.2024 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appea…

THYSSENKRUPP UHDE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income Tax- 15(3)(1) Uhde House, Room No.460, Vs. 4Th Floor, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (W.), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400083. M. K. Road, Pan: Aaacu1416H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M. M. Golvala A/W. Shri Hormuzd Jamshedji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Its Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059614356(1) Dated 11/01/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golvala a/w. Shri HormuzdFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…. Therefore, in the present case, the law laid down by Hon'ble court is to be regarded as law of land and it was to be presumed that the law was always like that. 5. The case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (305 ITR 103), as referred on behalf of assessee, deal with deduction u/s 80-0 for which two interpretations were possible viz. the deduction could be computed at gross value or the same could be 14 M/s. Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited computed on net value. The same is not the case here. The action of revenue is in accordance with the law laid down b…

KATHLEEN CONFECTIONERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1187/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate & Shri SonuFor Respondent: Shri Loviesh Shelley, JCIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Therefore, in the present case, the law laid down by Hon'ble court is to be regarded as law of land and it was to be presumed that the law was always like that. 11. The case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. V/s ACIT (305 ITR 103), as referred on behalf of assessee, deal with deduction u/s 80-O for which two interpretations were possible viz. the deduction could be computed at gross value or the same could be computed on net value. The same is not the case here. The action of rev- enue is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decision.…

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. KANDARP TRADELINKS AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VKI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

ITA 561/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 560 & 561/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 cuke DCIT Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Vs. Private Limited, VKI, Jaipur Circle-06, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCK 6158 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. A. S…

DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB JAIPUR vs. KANDARP TRADELINKS AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, V K I JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

ITA 560/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 560 & 561/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 cuke DCIT Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Vs. Private Limited, VKI, Jaipur Circle-06, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCK 6158 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. A. S…

M/S. BANGALORE PHARMACEUTICAL AND RESEARCH LABORATORY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 491/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, H., CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

…Therefore, in the present case, the law laid down by Hon’ble court is to be regarded as law of land and it was to be presumed that the law was always like that. 11. The case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. V/s ACIT (305 ITR 103), as referred on behalf of assessee, deal with deduction u/s 80-O for which two interpretations were possible viz. the deduction could be computed at gross value or the same could be computed on net value. The same is not the case here. The action of revenue is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. I…

CENTRAL INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2363/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Central Investigation & Dy. Cit, Cpc Security Services Ltd., Bangalore-565050. Vs. Block Q, Dalal Estate, Mumbai Central 400 008. Pan No. Aaacc 6145 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Adiya Sharma Revenue By : Mr. H M Bhatt, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/10/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Adiya SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. H M Bhatt, DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Central Investigation and Dy. CIT, CPC Security Services Ltd., Bangalore-565050. Vs. Block Q, Dalal Estate, Mumbai Central 400 008. PAN No. AAACC 6145 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Adiya Sharma Revenue by : Mr. H M Bhatt, DR Date of Hearing : 25/10/2023 : Date of pronouncement 02/11/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 15/11/2021 passed by the Ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Ap…

VISHNU COTTON MILLS LTD,2017-18 vs. AO, CIR.11, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 489/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.488 & 489/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd………...................................................……Appellant Narayanpur, P.O-Rajarhat, Gopalpur, W.B-700136. [Pan: Aabcv0405G] Vs. Ao, Circle-11, Kolkata..................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Chirajit Goswami, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments. 3. The Issue Raised By The Assessee Has Come To Rest By The Recent Verdict Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Therefore, in the present case, the law laid down by Hon'ble court is to be regarded as law of land and it was to be presumed that the law was always like that. 11. The case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. V/s ACIT (305 ITR 103), as referred on behalf of assessee, deal with deduction u/s 80-O for which two interpretations were possible viz. the deduction could be computed at gross value or the same could be computed on net value. The same is not the case here. The action of revenue is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. I…

VISHNU COTTON MILLS LTD,2017-18 vs. AO, CIR.11, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 488/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.488 & 489/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd………...................................................……Appellant Narayanpur, P.O-Rajarhat, Gopalpur, W.B-700136. [Pan: Aabcv0405G] Vs. Ao, Circle-11, Kolkata..................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Chirajit Goswami, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments. 3. The Issue Raised By The Assessee Has Come To Rest By The Recent Verdict Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Therefore, in the present case, the law laid down by Hon'ble court is to be regarded as law of land and it was to be presumed that the law was always like that. 11. The case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. V/s ACIT (305 ITR 103), as referred on behalf of assessee, deal with deduction u/s 80-O for which two interpretations were possible viz. the deduction could be computed at gross value or the same could be computed on net value. The same is not the case here. The action of revenue is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. I…

VISHASH AGARWAL,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 39/GTY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.39/Gty/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vishesh Agarwal…………………..……....….........…..........….…… Appellant C/O Assam Pushpak Travel Agency, Makum Road, Tinsukia, Assam – 786170. [Pan: Aghpa7072R] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dibrugarh……………..….…..…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumendu Sekhar Das, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.03.2020 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Therefore, in the present case, the law laid down by Hon'ble court is to be regarded as law of land and it was to be presumed that the law was always like that. 11. The case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. V/s ACIT (305 ITR 103), as referred on behalf of assessee, deal with deduction u/s 80-O for which two interpretations were possible viz. the deduction could be computed at gross value or the same could be computed on net value. The same is not the case here. The action of revenue is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. I…

M/S. ADD CONSTRUCTION,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 14/GTY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.12,13&14/Gau/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 M/S Add Construction….…........…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H.No.15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. [Pan: Aaifa2627H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati ……….…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 22, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2018-19 To 2020-21 Are Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] All Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Common Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Therefore, in the present case, the law laid down by Hon'ble court is to be regarded as law of land and it was to be presumed that the law was always like that. 11. The case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. V/s ACIT (305 ITR 103), as referred on behalf of assessee, deal with deduction u/s 80-O for which two interpretations were possible viz. the deduction could be computed at gross value or the same could be computed on net value. The same is not the case here. The action of revenue is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. I…

M/S. ADD CONSTRUCTION,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 13/GTY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.12,13&14/Gau/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 M/S Add Construction….…........…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H.No.15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. [Pan: Aaifa2627H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati ……….…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 22, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2018-19 To 2020-21 Are Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] All Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Common Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Therefore, in the present case, the law laid down by Hon'ble court is to be regarded as law of land and it was to be presumed that the law was always like that. 11. The case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. V/s ACIT (305 ITR 103), as referred on behalf of assessee, deal with deduction u/s 80-O for which two interpretations were possible viz. the deduction could be computed at gross value or the same could be computed on net value. The same is not the case here. The action of revenue is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. I…

M/S. ADD CONSTRUCTION,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 12/GTY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.12,13&14/Gau/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 M/S Add Construction….…........…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H.No.15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. [Pan: Aaifa2627H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati ……….…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 22, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2018-19 To 2020-21 Are Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] All Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Common Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Therefore, in the present case, the law laid down by Hon'ble court is to be regarded as law of land and it was to be presumed that the law was always like that. 11. The case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. Ltd. V/s ACIT (305 ITR 103), as referred on behalf of assessee, deal with deduction u/s 80-O for which two interpretations were possible viz. the deduction could be computed at gross value or the same could be computed on net value. The same is not the case here. The action of revenue is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. I…

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3