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.

Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244)

Q: How many judgments cite Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT?

121 judgments on BharatTax cite Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244), spanning 2019 to 2022.

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

…tion in ITA Nos.240 & 241/Chny/2022 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. 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

…tion in ITA Nos.240 & 241/Chny/2022 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…

Sk Elecgtricals, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 239/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 R. Venkata Raman (CA) – 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

…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…

Amutha, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 238/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh (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

…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. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 224/CHNY/2022[2018-1]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban (FCA) – 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

…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…

Nss Equipments India LLP, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1394/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1394/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Nss Equipments India Llp, Shetty House, Panchsheel Nagar, Vasant Patil Marg, Sion, Chnabhatti, Mumbai 400 022. Pan: Aakfn-7271-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.Cit, Cpc Bangalore, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No.48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 100. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “बी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1394/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) NSS Equipments India LLP, Shetty House, Panchsheel Nagar, Vasant Patil Marg, Sion, Chnabhatti, Mumbai 400 022. PAN: AAKFN-7271-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.CIT, CPC Bangalore, 1st Floor, Prestige Alpha No.48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 100. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपी…

Asm Marketing Private Limited, Chennai vs. Aoc.Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 144/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Ganesh Babu (FCA) – 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

…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…

Asm Marketing Private Limited, Chennai vs. Aoc.Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 143/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Ganesh Babu (FCA) – 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

…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…

Raju Kumar Singh, Partner, Delhi vs. Ward 34(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: 20/04/2022

Section 143(1)Section 43B

…I.T.A. No. 389/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. 389/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raju Kumar Singh, Partner, Kajal Security & Placement Ward : 34 (2) बनाम Service, B-1155, 2nd Floor, New Delhi. Vs. Shastri Nagar, Delhi – 110 052. PAN No. AAIFK9861F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent N o n e; िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R.; राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by : 20/04/2022 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 29/04/2022 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on : आदेश /O R…

Promila Hans, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 385/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 385/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Promila Hans, Income Tax Officer, A-74, Gali No. 1, Ward : 2 (1) बनाम Sgm Nagar, Badkhal, Faridabad. Vs. Faridabad – 121 001. Pan No. Aapph6267D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: N o n e

Section 143(1)Section 43B

…I.T.A. No. 385/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. 385/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Promila Hans, Income Tax Officer, A-74, Gali No. 1, Ward : 2 (1) बनाम SGM Nagar, Badkhal, Faridabad. Vs. Faridabad – 121 001. PAN No. AAPPH6267D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : N o n e; Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R.; राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by : सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 20/04/2022 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on : 29/04/2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER C. N. PRASAD,…

Vyona Logistics Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 117/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary ( JCIT) a

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,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. No. 117/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Vyona Logistics Private Limited ITO, B 525B, Road No. 6, VKI Area, Vs. Ward-4(2), Jaipur-302013. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCV 2515 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 116/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-…

Alfamax Packaging Solutions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 116/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary ( JCIT) a

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,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. No. 117/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Vyona Logistics Private Limited ITO, B 525B, Road No. 6, VKI Area, Vs. Ward-4(2), Jaipur-302013. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCV 2515 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 116/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-…

C R Textile Mills, Athanoor vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 54/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 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…

Gokul Industries, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 412/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh (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…

Vanitha Textiles, Palladam vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 407/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 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…

Gokul Industries, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 577/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh (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…

M/S Cauvery Stones, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 124/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel (Advocate) -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

…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 ITA Nos.123 & 124/Chny/2022 whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employ…

M/S Cauvery Stones Impex Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 123/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel (Advocate) -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

…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 ITA Nos.123 & 124/Chny/2022 whether assessee-employer is entitled to deduction in respect of sum belatedly paid towards employ…

Amazinf Export Corporation, Palladam vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 99/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)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…

M/S. Ultracon Structural System Private Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Corporate Circle - 3(2), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 97/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)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…

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

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

Also referred to as

Issues it is cited on

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

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

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

Sk Elecgtricals, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Amutha, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Nss Equipments India LLP, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

Asm Marketing Private Limited, Chennai vs. Aoc.Circle 1(1), Chennai

Asm Marketing Private Limited, Chennai vs. Aoc.Circle 1(1), Chennai

Raju Kumar Singh, Partner, Delhi vs. Ward 34(2), Delhi

Promila Hans, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Haryana

Vyona Logistics Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), Jaipur

Alfamax Packaging Solutions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

C R Textile Mills, Athanoor vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore

Gokul Industries, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Vanitha Textiles, Palladam vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Gokul Industries, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

M/S Cauvery Stones, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

M/S Cauvery Stones Impex Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Amazinf Export Corporation, Palladam vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

M/S. Ultracon Structural System Private Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Corporate Circle - 3(2), Chennai