Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. v. CIT

96 Taxmann.com 13High Court2018#320 most cited

What is Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Employees' contributions to ESI and PF are not deductible if deposited after the due dates specified in the respective welfare statutes, even if paid before the income tax return filing due date under section 139(1). This is because sections 36(1)(va) and 43B operate independently, with section 36(1)(va) specifically governing such contributions.

262

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Popular Vehicles & Services · employees' contribution ESI PF · section 36(1)(va) · section 43B · belated deposit · due date for deduction · section 139(1) · disallowance · income tax return filing · section 2(24)(x)

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158besection 43b(b)section 113section 92fclarificatory amendmentretrospective amendmentsection 158bbsection 36(1)(va)section 43bemployees contribution to pfsection 36(1)section 43

Judgments citing Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. v. CIT

Super Rubber Mix, Madurai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 1, Madurai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 323/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.T. Hariharan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

Arun Polymers, Madurai vs. ACIT Non Corpcircle 1, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 322/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.T. Hariharan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

Deccan Industries, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 320/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjunraj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

The Ktm Jewellery Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporae Circle-2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 319/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

A K Facility Services Private Limited, Thiruporrur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

Appeal is allowed

ITA 309/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Roopeswari R. (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. ITA No: 309/Chny/2022 However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

Dr Axion India Private Limited, Thiruvallur vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 302/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

Sri Ramesh Colour Match Works, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 300/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

Sri Maharaj Colour Match Works, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 299/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

Sri Ramesh Sparklers Facory, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 298/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

M/S Saravana Selfavathnam Retail Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT.CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.288/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Sarvana Selvarathnam Retail Adit बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Cpc, No.14, Ranganathan Street, T. Nagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Chennai – 600 017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs-2680-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-06-2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

M/S Saravana Selvarathnam Trading & Manufacturing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Benguluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 287/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

M/S Saravana Selvarathnam Trading & Manufacturing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Benguluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 286/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

M/S Punniyamoorthy Pillai Department Store, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Circle(OSD)-1, Trichy

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 285/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

Preety Arora, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Mumbai

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

ITA 1515/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalpreety Arora Vs. Adit (Cpc) 96, Shanghrila Shahid Karnataka Bhagatsingh Road Colaba 560100 Maharashtra – 400005 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadpa3141M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Pooja Hasrajani Respondent By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Ms.Pooja HasrajaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ITA No.1515/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 1 Preety Arora Vs.ADIT(CPC) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Preety Arora Vs. ADIT (CPC) 96, Shanghrila Shahid Karnataka Bhagatsingh Road Colaba 560100 Maharashtra – 400005 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AADPA3141M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms.Pooja Hasrajani Respondent by : Mr. R.A. Dhyani Date of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against…

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.393 and 452/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2018-19 and 2019-20 M/s. Anjappar Chettinad AC ITO, Vs. Restaurant - Bangalore, Ward – 1(2)(1), 100 Ft Road, Indira Nagar, BMTC Building, Bengaluru-560 038. Bengaluru. PAN : AAZFA 0846 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Padmanaban, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 14.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.06.2022 O R D E R ITA No.393Bang/2022 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated…

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 393/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.393 and 452/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2018-19 and 2019-20 M/s. Anjappar Chettinad AC ITO, Vs. Restaurant - Bangalore, Ward – 1(2)(1), 100 Ft Road, Indira Nagar, BMTC Building, Bengaluru-560 038. Bengaluru. PAN : AAZFA 0846 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Padmanaban, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 14.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.06.2022 O R D E R ITA No.393Bang/2022 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated…

M/S. Indigenous Bureau of India, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 82/MUM/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 81 & 82 /Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/S Indigenous Bureau Vs. Cit(A) Of India (Formerly Known As Nfac, Delhi Investigation Bureau Of India) 164, 3Rd Floor, Zaveri Chambers, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafi1617H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N. B. GandhiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ITA Nos.81 & 82/Mum/2022 AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20 1 M/s Indigenous Bureau of India. Vs. CIT(A) NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 81 & 82 /Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/s Indigenous Bureau Vs. CIT(A) of India (Formerly Known as NFAC, Delhi Investigation Bureau of India) 164, 3rd Floor, Zaveri Chambers, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAAFI1617H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : N. B. Gandhi Respondent by : R.A. Dhyani Date of Hearing 31.05…

M/S. Indigenous Bureau of India, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 81/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 81 & 82 /Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/S Indigenous Bureau Vs. Cit(A) Of India (Formerly Known As Nfac, Delhi Investigation Bureau Of India) 164, 3Rd Floor, Zaveri Chambers, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafi1617H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N. B. GandhiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ITA Nos.81 & 82/Mum/2022 AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20 1 M/s Indigenous Bureau of India. Vs. CIT(A) NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 81 & 82 /Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/s Indigenous Bureau Vs. CIT(A) of India (Formerly Known as NFAC, Delhi Investigation Bureau of India) 164, 3rd Floor, Zaveri Chambers, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAAFI1617H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : N. B. Gandhi Respondent by : R.A. Dhyani Date of Hearing 31.05…

M/S Saint-Gobain Indi Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 241/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…

M/S. Saint Gobain India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 240/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) would be an allowable deduction considering the provisions of Sec.43B. However, view against the assessee has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd. V/s CIT (96 Taxmann.com 13; 02.07.2018) as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (supra). In these cases, the view of Hon’ble Courts is that the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43B operate differently and therefore, any late remittance of Employees’ Contribution beyond due date as specified in relevant statutes governin…