Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT

100 Taxmann.com 244High Court2018#859 most cited

What is Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different; therefore, these provisions cannot be read together for determining the deduction of belatedly paid employee contributions. To assess the allowability of such a deduction, only Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) applies.

121

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Unifac Management Services v. DCIT · Section 43B · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 2(24)(x) · employee contribution deduction · belated payment · PF ESI · due date payment · scope of 43B and 36(1)(va)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(c)section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 2(24)section 36(1)section 43section 36section 139(1)section 139section 143(1)section 13

Judgments citing Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT

Sumathi Corporate Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 530/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 530/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/s. Sumathi Corporate Vs. Income Tax Officer, Services Private Limited, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN No. AAKCS8202M] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध / Assessee by: NONE रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध / Revenue by: Ms. Swapna, DR सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date of hearing: 30/11/2022 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 30/11/2022 आदे…

M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 45/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. v. The DCIT 17-A, Co-operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:AAACG5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent by: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date of hearing: 18 10 2022 Date of pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 1.3.2021 of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of five days in fili…

M/S, Madras Hydraulic Hose Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 702/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee- employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefo…

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 661/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee- employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefo…

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 660/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee- employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefo…

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)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER D.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 ass…

Mansoor Aiyaz Ebrahim, Chennai vs. Assistant Dirctor of Incometax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 622/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefor…

Mansoor Aiyaz Ebrahim, Chennai vs. Assistant Dirctor of Incometax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 621/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefor…

Tonglit Autogistic Private Limited, Chennai vs. Asst Director of It, CPC Income Tax Department, Banglore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 566/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh. S (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefor…

M/S Amalgamations Repco Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 559/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R,Vijayaraghvan (Advocate)-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

…n of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefor…

Lawkush Sharma, Sonebhadra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (5), Sonebhadra

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

ITA 23/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K.R.Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VARANASI CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRIVIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, v. Tax (CPC), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 PAN:ARTPS9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. K.R.Tiwari, Advocate Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 07.07. 2022 Date of pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee with In…

DCIT, CC -3 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Talentpro India Hr Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 459/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefor…

Hemant Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. Ward 62(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: 28/06/2022
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…I.T.A. No. 322/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “S.M.C.” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.322/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hemant Kumar Gupta, बनाम 217, GH – 12, Ward : 62 (4) Paschim Vihar, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AAEPG8407D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Ms. Neha Gupta, C. A.; & िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Gupta, C. A.; Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D. R.; राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by : 28/06/2022 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing : 28/06/2022 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on : आदेश / O R D E R PER…

Gurudev Motors Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 490/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefor…

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. ITO. Non Corp Ward 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 444/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 V. Padmanabhan(C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefor…

ITO, Ward1(1), Trichy vs. Anjappar Chettinad Restaurant, Trichy

Appeal is allowed

ITA 443/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 V. Padmanabhan(C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefor…

Anjappar Chettinad Restaurant Adayar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Cop Ward-15(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 442/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 V. Padmanabhan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefor…

Sri Mookambika Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, Madurai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 425/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 S. Balakrishnan (for assessee)For Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefor…

Sahana Clothing Company Private Limited, Dindigul vs. PCIT, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 417/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 Yeshwanth Kumar (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefor…

Urc Construction Pvt Ltd., Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 390/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 G. Baskar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. However, in later decision titled as Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefor…