“Section 143(1)(a)(iv)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)(iv)322 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(a)(iv) is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)(a)(iv)

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court

897

citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT

227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court

621

citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.

343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court

438

citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court

363

citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT

177 ITR 377 · 1989 · Supreme Court

275

citing judgments

Expenditure that provides a commercial advantage of an enduring nature may still be classified as revenue expenditure if its purpose is to facilitate existing trading operations, improve business efficiency, or upgrade existing products, depending on the specific context and objective.

CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.

222 ITR 344 · 1996 · Supreme Court

223

citing judgments

Unclaimed deposits received in the course of trading transactions and sundry credit balances written back are taxable as business income under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they constitute a cessation of trading liability.

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills

296 ITR 238 · 2008 · High Court

180

citing judgments

A mere audit objection, by itself, is insufficient to infer that an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings.

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

404 ITR 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court

164

citing judgments

The waiver of a loan taken for acquiring capital assets is considered a capital receipt and is not taxable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling distinguishes between the waiver of trading liabilities and capital liabilities for tax purposes.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)(a)(iv)

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 94/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. RuniPal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

situation, cannot be reason enough to disregard the binding views of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Court. To that extent, the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) must be read down. What essentially follows is the adjustments under section 143(1)(a) in respect of” disallowance of expenditure indicated

Ravi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 7, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 72/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Itr. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Of Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,995/- Being Double Addition Of Speculative Income.’’

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

A September Home Lifestyle Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 40/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Due Date Of Deposit As Mentioned In Relevant Act Despite The Fact That The Amount Was Deposited In The Relevant Fund Before Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return Under Income Tax Act, 1961.’’

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

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

Swastic Oil Industries, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 35/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

143(1) of the Act disallowing the employee's contribution of PF/ESI deposited beyond the date in the relevant law Under Section 143(1)(a)(iv), it is asserted that only those claims or expenses, which have been identified as disallowable in the audit report but have not been considered ... situation, cannot be reason enough to disregard the binding views of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Court. To that extent, the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) must be read down. What essentially follows is the adjustments under section 143(1)(a) in respect of” disallowance of expenditure indicated

Swastic Oil Industires, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 34/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Dynasty Modular Furnitures Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 99/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

indicated in the Audit Report and therefore, the said adjustment could not have been made as per the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) is not acceptable . The information viz- a-viz the amount of the contribution, the due date and the date of actual payment ... situation, cannot be reason enough to disregard the binding views of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Court. To that extent, the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) must be read down. What essentially follows is the adjustments under section 143(1)(a) in respect of” disallowance of expenditure indicated

Newage Fire Protection Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. National Faceless Appeal, Mumbai

ITA 487/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Newage Fire Protection Engineers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeas National Faceless Appeal, Mumbai

ITA 486/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Honourable Packaging P Ltd, Dhar vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 348/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The 143(1).

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member

Ashok Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 186/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

disallowance cannot be made by way of adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act, as, it is not covered under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. In this context, he relied upon a decision of 3 ITA No.186/Del./2023 the Co-ordinate Bench in case ... upheld. In so far as the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that such adjustment is not contemplated under Section 143(1)(a) (iv) of the Act, I am unable to accept the contention in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, in case of Savleen Kaur

Bihani Constructions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 19/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.19/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Bihani Constructions (P) Ltd. 64/167, Heera Path, VT Road Mansarovar, Jaipur 302 020 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 4(1) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAECB 8359 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 350/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

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

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

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

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 200/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

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

Shreeji Trans Logistics Ltd., Thane vs. CIT (A), CPC, Banglore

In the result, th same. In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are e grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed

ITA 388/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Ita No. 388 To 390/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2019-2020 Shreeji Translogistics Ltd., Cit(Appeals), Plot No. 107, Shreeji Krupa, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Sector 19-C, Phase-Ii Vashi, Centre, Thane-400705 Delhi. Pan No. Aaecs 3602 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Anil Sant, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Anil Sant, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)

objections/replies filed by the Shreeji Translogistics Ltd.. Shreeji Translogistics Ltd. Appellant Company about non-applicability of provisions of of provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act & without recording any section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act & without recording any section 143(1)(a)(iv ... framed assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act and under section 143(3) of the Act and not under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. In other words, the not under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. In other words, the not under

Prime Comfort Porducts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

disallowance cannot be made by way of adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act as it is not covered under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. In this context, he relied upon a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in case of M/s. P.R. Packaging Services ... upheld. In so far as the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that such adjustment is not contemplated under Section 143(1)(a) (iv) of the Act, I am unable to accept the contention in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, in case of Savleen Kour

M/S. Geekay Securities Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1842/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Geekay Securities Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle-3(1)(1) Services Private Limited 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, G-11, Tulsani Chambers, M.K. Marg, Free Press Journal Marg Mumbai- 400020 Nariman Point, Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccg1282D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram Respondent By : Smt. Anne Varghese Date Of Hearing 17.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Nfac, Delhi Dated 08.09.2021 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In The Circumstances & Facts Of Our Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Dcit, Cpc In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs.1,21,39,702/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Despite The Fact That The Said Amount Of Rs1,21,39,702/- Comprises Of Two Components, An Amount Of Rs.64,43,502/- Which Pertains To Employer'S Contribution To Provident Fund/Lwf & An Amount Of Rs.56,96,200/- Which Pertains To Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund / Lwf & Not Considering The Conclusive Evidence Submitted In Its Written Submission & Supporting Paper Book 2.. In The Circumstances & Facts Of Our Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld Dcit, Cpc In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs. 56,96,200/-

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Smt. Anne Varghese

Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

P a g e | 1 M/s Geekay Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1) THE INCOME TAX

ACIT-Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1431/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Teradata India Pvt. Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), Ltd., 301-302, Tower 4A, Gurugram S-Block Dlf Corporate Park, Dlf City Phase-Iii, Pan No. Aacct 6715 A Gurugram – 122 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akshay Uppal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.05.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Acit Vs. Teradata India Pvt Ltd. 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Who Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.11.2020 For A.Y. 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.61,82,86,370 /-. In The Intimation Issued U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Cpc, Bangalore Vide Identification No. Cpc/1920/A6/2014289684 Dated 18.03.2021, The Total Income Was Determined At Rs. 66,49,98,020/- Inter Alia By Disallowing Rs.4,67,11,644/- U/S 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees Contribution Of Pf/Esi.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH

Transnational Drilling & Minning Associates Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1834/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ustransnational Drilling & Vs. Dcit Minning Associates Pvt. Cpc Ltd., Luv-303, Agrasen New Delhi Apartment, , Ip Extension, New Delhi-110 092 Pan No. Aadct 1249 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH

Incedo Technology Solutions Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle -10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 460/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Limited vs. DCIT 3 interpreting the provisions of section 43B r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act and invoking the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that section 43B begins with a non obstante clause