Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Suzlon Energy Ltd.

423 ITR 608High Court2020#20838 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 1952Section 36Section 38Section 38 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Suzlon Energy Ltd.

Checkmate Facility and Electronis Solutions Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 706/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…called for u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the Bench confronted the Counsel for the assessee with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2020] 115 taxmann.com 340 (Gujarat)/[2020] 423 ITR 608 (Gujarat) vide order dated 11-02-2020, in which Gujarat High Court held that where assessee had not deposited employees' contributions towards PF and ESI within prescribed period in law and Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) made addition of aforesaid amount to income of assessee, impugned add…

Checkmate Facility and Electronic Solutions Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 473/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…called for u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the Bench confronted the Counsel for the assessee with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2020] 115 taxmann.com 340 (Gujarat)/[2020] 423 ITR 608 (Gujarat) vide order dated 11-02-2020, in which Gujarat High Court held that where assessee had not deposited employees' contributions towards PF and ESI within prescribed period in law and Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) made addition of aforesaid amount to income of assessee, impugned add…

D.D.Builders Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/CTK/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiad.D.Builders Ltd., Plot No.36-F, Bjb Nagar, Bhubaneswar Pan No.Aabcd 1433 E ………………Assessee Versus Acit, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar ………………..Revenue Shri Kamal Kumar Agrawalla, Ca For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0465/19-20, Dated 18.01.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee That The Only Issue In This Appeal Was Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date As Prescribed Under The Respective Acts But Before The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return. Ld. Ar Placed Before Us A Decision Of The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Odyssey Motors Pvt. Ltd., In Ita

Section 36(1)(va)

…ndia)(P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2018] 100 taxmann.com 244 (Madras); ii) CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat); iii) CIT Vs. Merchem Limited, (2015) 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); 4 iv) Pr.CIT Vs. M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd., (2020) 423 ITR 608 (Guj); v) CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., (2019) 410 ITR 0417 (Delhi), vi) Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd., [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13 (Kerala); vii) South India Corporation Ltd., [2015] 58 taxmann.com 208 (Kerala); viii) Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.1312/Del/2020, order dated 26.08.2021. 4. We have considered rival submissions. There are…

Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 358/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 68

…der Sec.36(1)(va) only if the amounts so received from the employee was paid within the due date as provided under the relevant statute, we do not think that this is a case to which such a principle is applicable. iv) Pr.CIT Vs. M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd., (2020) 423 ITR 608 (Guj), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under :- 7. Thus, the dictum as laid in the aforesaid decision is that Section 38 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 makes it obligatory for the employer before paying him his wages to deduct the employee's contribution along with the employer's own contribution…