Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad

189 ITD 676Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#8261 most cited

What is Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad authority for?

Amendments to Section 36(1)(va)/43B of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2021, are applicable from Assessment Year 2021-2022. Adjustments or additions related to employees' contribution to ESIC and PF that fall outside the scope of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) or Section 143(1) of the Act are not permissible.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. v. ITO · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · Finance Act 2021 · Assessment Year 2021-2022 · Section 143(1)(a)(iv) · employees contribution · ESIC · PF · disallowance of expenditure

Issues it is cited on

section 36(l)(va)section 36(l)section 40a(9)section 143(1)(a)(iv)section 143(1)(a)section 36(1)(va)section 40a(3)section 43bsection 36(1)section 40asection 43section 40(a)

Judgments citing Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad

Welcare Hospital, Sa Road, Vyttila vs. Ass. Director of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle (1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 217/COCH/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…but was before the due date of fling the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act and otherwise allowable u/s. 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. Reliance was placed on the ITAT Hyderabad decision in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, 189 ITD 676 and Supreme Court decision in the case of M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT, 436 ITR 582 (SC). 5. The ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate…

The Malad Sahakari Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 61/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ms. Tejasvi PatilFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Malad Sahakari Bank Limited, 6, Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg, Malad (East), Mumbai - 400097 [PAN: AAAAT0320R] ……………… Appellant Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre, …………….… Respondent Delhi Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Ms. Tejasvi Patil For the Respondent/Department : Shri B.K. Bagchi Date of conclusion of hearing : 12.05.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 04.08.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Ap…

The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 2426/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return Prescribed Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj K. JainFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, 139, Seksaria Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 [PAN: AAACE2566J] ……………… Appellant Vs ACIT 2(1)(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M G Road, Mumbai - 400020 …………….… Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Pankaj K. Jain For the Respondent/Department : Shri B.K. Bagchi Date of conclusion of hearing : 11.05.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 28.07.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Mem…

Samosaran Yarns Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 2111/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return Prescribed Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri M.B. SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Further, even after the introduction of amendments to Section 36(1)(va)/43B of the Act by way of Finance Act, 2021, Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal had, vide order dated 15.06.2021, in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. vs ITO, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad: 189 ITD 676 (Hyderabad - Trib.) held that the aforesaid amendments are applicable from Assessment Year 2021-2022. Further, the ITA. No. 2111/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 adjustments/additions in respect of employees contribution to ESIC and PF fell outside the scope of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. Section 143(1)(a)(iv) provides for adjustment in th…

Greenglobe Fuelsolutions, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1886/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income And, Hence, Allowable As Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 43B.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandraFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Further, even after the introduction of amendments to Section 36(1)(va)/43B of the Act by way of Finance Act, 2021, Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal had, vide order dated 15.06.2021, in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. vs ITO, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad : 189 ITD 676 (Hyderabad - Trib.) held that the aforesaid amendments are applicable from Assessment Year 2021- 2022. Accordingly, the adjustments/additions made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC in respect of employees contribution to ESIC and PF fell outside the scope of Section 143(1) of the Act. Identical view has been taken by the Tribunal view…

Fortive India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 443/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…Further, even after the introduction of amendments to Section 36(1)(va)/43B of the Act by way of Finance Act, 2021, Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal had, vide order dated 15.06.2021, in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. vs ITO, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad : 189 ITD 676 (Hyderabad - Trib.) held that the aforesaid amendments are applicable from Assessment Year 2021-2022. Accordingly, the adjustments/additions made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC in respect of employees contribution to ESI and PF fell outside the scope of Section 143(1) of the Act. Identical view has been taken by the Tribunal view h…

Nirmal Kumar Bardiya, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 260 /JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Nirmal Kumar Bardiya cuke ACIT Vs. 24, Bardiya Colony, Museum Road Circle-1 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABAPB 9576 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 261/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Shri Nirmal K…

Rmc Gems India Ltd, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 259/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. RMC Gems India Ltd. cuke ADIT, CPC Vs. Bengaluru 24, Bardiya Colony, Museum Road Jaipur – 302 004 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 7495 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma, CA & Shri R.K. Bhatra, CA jktLo dh…

Smt. Manju Jindal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 350/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 348 To 350/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The Cpc, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acvpj3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 36Section 43B

…of deposit of P.F. & ESI stood settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (2009) 319 ITR 306, UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER V EXCIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER (2020) 425 ITR I SC & Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. V. ITO, 189 ITD 676 (Hyd. Trib)as payment having been made before the due date of filling of return of income and hence allowable u/s 43B starting with non obstante clause -overriding all other provisions. That while sustaining the disallowance of Rs.9,13,579/- the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate that disallowance made by CPC Bangalore was contrary to the provisions…

Smt. Manju Jindal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 349/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 348 To 350/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The Cpc, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acvpj3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 36Section 43B

…of deposit of P.F. & ESI stood settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (2009) 319 ITR 306, UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER V EXCIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER (2020) 425 ITR I SC & Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. V. ITO, 189 ITD 676 (Hyd. Trib)as payment having been made before the due date of filling of return of income and hence allowable u/s 43B starting with non obstante clause -overriding all other provisions. That while sustaining the disallowance of Rs.9,13,579/- the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate that disallowance made by CPC Bangalore was contrary to the provisions…

Smt. Manju Jindal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 348/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 348 To 350/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The Cpc, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acvpj3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 36Section 43B

…of deposit of P.F. & ESI stood settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (2009) 319 ITR 306, UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER V EXCIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER (2020) 425 ITR I SC & Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. V. ITO, 189 ITD 676 (Hyd. Trib)as payment having been made before the due date of filling of return of income and hence allowable u/s 43B starting with non obstante clause -overriding all other provisions. That while sustaining the disallowance of Rs.9,13,579/- the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate that disallowance made by CPC Bangalore was contrary to the provisions…

M/S Mplex Networks Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3371/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Joijode, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(iv)

…139(1) of the Act, though after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statute, the same cannot be disallowed u/s. 36(1)(iv) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act as held by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. V. ITO, 189 ITD 676 (Hyd. Trib) wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee placing reliance on the following judgments:- (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119 / 235 Taxmann 378 / 378 ITR 443 (Ker) (ii) CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj) (iii) CIT v. South India Corpn. Ltd. [2000] 108 Taxman 322 / 242 ITR 114…

M/S Mplex Networks Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3370/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Joijode, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(iv)

…139(1) of the Act, though after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statute, the same cannot be disallowed u/s. 36(1)(iv) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act as held by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. V. ITO, 189 ITD 676 (Hyd. Trib) wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee placing reliance on the following judgments:- (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119 / 235 Taxmann 378 / 378 ITR 443 (Ker) (ii) CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj) (iii) CIT v. South India Corpn. Ltd. [2000] 108 Taxman 322 / 242 ITR 114…