← All Phrases

“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)

Shilpa Steel and Powers Ltd, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur

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

ITA 317/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

therefore, allowable. The adjustment made in the intimation is outside the purview and scope of adjustments as envisaged under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the amendments in sections 36 and 43B of the Act made in Finance Act, 2021, are applicable

Bofa Securities India Limited, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Centre of Income Tax Department, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4192/MUM/2024[AY 2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhribofa Securities India V/S. Acit-Circle-(4)(1)(1), Limited बनाम Mumbai Ground Floor, A Wing, One Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Bkc, G Block, Bkc, Road, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacd0535G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

towards employees' contribution to PF since the said adjustment does not fall within the ambit of adjustments provided under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act while processing the return of income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred

Brahma Chandra Yadav, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Range 17, Ward 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3034/DEL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roybrahma Chandra Yadav Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing 1G 201 Awho Township, Officer Range-17, Gurjinder Vihar, Greater Ward 2(1)(1), Cgo, Noida, Gautam Buddha Complex-I Purani Hapur Nagar, Up-201310 Chungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abfpy5867K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

payment dates of employees' contributions towards Provident Fund without recommending any disallowance. The CPC relied on this report to make additions under section 143(1)(a)(iv), which is unjustifiable since the auditor did not indicate any disallowance. Hence, the addition based on this report exceeds the permissible scope

M/S. Dulichand Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1807/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 32Section 40A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A (SMC)” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Zahir Kasam Memon, Mumbai vs. Addl-JCIT (A)-2, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 914/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Murtaza Quresh Ghadiali- CA &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh-
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

only after the decision of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(supra) by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amendment was made to section 143(1)(A)(iv), and therefore has to be construed to be prospective in nature. 4.1. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee‟s auditor in clause ... before us: i. The appellant asserts that the disallowance of employees' contributions to PF and ESIC, as undertaken by the CPC under section 143(1)(a)(iv), is void ab initio and based on an erroneous interpretation of the tax audit report, which purportedly contains clerical inaccuracies. The appellant further

Co-Op-Cane Development Union Gola, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ITO Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri-1

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

ITA 185/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaco-Op Cane Development The Income Tax Officer, V. Union Gola Range-3(4) C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262701. Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, Up. Pan:Aaaac1960A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

Income was not filed within the due date. (ii)The disallowance u/s 80(P) was outside the scope and ambit of section 143(1)(a)(iv) for A.Y. 2019-20. It is seen from intimation order that the due date of filing of original return of income

Thamanna, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle-2(1), Mysore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1188/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

details of contribution received from employees for various funds and has not indicated these disallowances expressly so as to attract adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. ♦ The disallowances made are beyond the scope and ambit of adjustment provided under section 143(1)(a) while processing ... before due date of filing of income-tax return. In that scenario, the CPC could not have made adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. ♦ Amendment to section 36(1)(va) introducing Explanation-2, which clarifies that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply

Jalitha Jagadeesan, Puducherry vs. ACIT, Puducherry

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

ITA 1015/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1015/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Jalitha Jagadeesan, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.424, Anna Salai, Vs. Income Tax, Pondicherry – 605 001, Circle-1, Puducherry (Ut). Puducherry. [Pan: Aeupj 3356G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate Fgथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 15.03.2024 Confirming The Adjustment Made In The Intimation Issued By Cpc, Bengaluru U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On 08.07.2022. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 40A(3)

1) of the Act. The assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the disallowance relying upon the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that the disallowance has been made on the basis of facts furnished ... assessee for the audit and is well within the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has further noted that the cash payment has been done in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act and the case does not fall under

Mj Patel Share and Stock Brokers Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, Karnataka

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2021-22 Mj Patel Share & Stock Assistant Director Of Brokers Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc, Pg-4, Rotunda Building, Bengaluru Vs. Mumbai Samachar Marg, Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aaacm 8215E Assessee By Shri Adesh Kumar Agrahari Revenue By Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Senior Dr 5Th August, 2024 Date Of Hearing 10Th October, 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 37Section 37(1)

Segment 7. NSE-Late/Non- submission of Half 14,700 Yearly Net Worth TOTAL 1,12,984 without appreciating that Section 143(1)(a)(iv) was wrongly invoked as the penalty or fine of Rs.1,12,984/- as above was not indicated in the audit report for disallowance and hence ... Processing Centre issued a communication dated 14th April 2022 was received by the assessee wherein the addition of ₹ 1,12,984/– under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act was found to be inconsistency in the order and the return. Assessee disclosed it to be penalty. In response

Abbott Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2756/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

Bangalore had taken up this data from Tax Audit Report and sought to disallow the same while processing the return under section 143(1) (a)(iv) of the Act. 11. In following judicial pronouncements by the coordinate benches, scope of Tax Audit Report has been discussed at length as under ... justifications enough for any disallowance of expenditure under the Act? As we deal with this question, we are alive to the fact section 143(1) (a) (iv) specifically an adjustment in respect of "disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total

Virendra Singh Saini, Haryana vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं

Sanjiv Prakashan, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 9/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Sh. Anil Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

when there is no disallowance, provisions of section 143(1)(iv) cannot be invoked. 6. Attention is drawn towards the fact in Section 143(1)(a)(iv), words 'increase in income' has been added by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021. In view of provisions ... Thus, invoking this clause for making adjustment in the returned income is without jurisdiction. 7. It is further submitted that provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) can be invoked with reference to other clauses like, for example, the following wherein the auditor is required to express his opinion with

G I Auto Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 448/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2019-2020

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80J

submitted that subsequently, a communication u/s. 143(1)(a) dated 26-2-2020 was received proposing following adjustments: Under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) / 143(1)(a)(ii) Amount disallowable u/s 36(1)(va) Rs. 46,520 Amount disallowable u/s 43B Rs. 56,00,000 Under Section 143(1

Mahantesh H, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 874/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeymahantesh H Dcit, Circe 4(1)(1) #6, Poojari Krishan Bldg. Koramangala Bhavani Road, Hebbagodi Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore 560099 Pan – Aoypm2771G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subramanya Bhat, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “C” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey

DCIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 648/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.648/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Dcit Adidas India Marketing P. Ltd. Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Circle 1(1), Vs. Room No.153A, Sector-B, Pocket No.7, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Plot No.11, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. South West Delhi, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaca5313P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

I.T.A.No.648/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sangay Choden Bhutia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 70(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 624/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHΜΑΝ (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37(1)

request It is a fact that, the case of this assessee clearly falls under the adjustment to be made, as provided in Section 143(1)(a)(iv) and accordingly in this case the 'Suo-moto' rectification was required to be done, to make the above adjustment. However, the reason mentioned

M/S. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Juridiction the Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 69/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Checkmate Adit, Cpc, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Services Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore Vs. G.F 6-9, Amaan Tower & Suvas Colony, Fatehgunj, Dy.Cit Vadodara, Gujarat, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara 390002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc8465A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. R. Sahu, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 12/07/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 08.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2019-20 On 30.09.2019 Declaring Total

For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, three adjustments were in respect of disallowance of expenditure indicated in audit report under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. In view of these facts, the contention of the assessee that no prior intimation of the adjustment was given

Sri. Amit Kumar Rajendra Prasad Singh, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 306/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 143Section 234ASection 250Section 36

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Global Security Services, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Accordingly, CPC disallowed said payment made by assessee under section 36(1)(va) by passing intimation order under section 143(1)(a)(iv). It was noted that tax auditor had clearly indicated in his audit report that employees' contribution towards PF and ESI were not paid within due date. Such ... date as it was in contravention of section 36(1)(va), therefore, adjustment with respect to impugned deduction fell within ambit of section 143(1)(a)(iv). The ld. DR further submitted that the case law relied on by the ld. AR of assessee is not applicable in the present

Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income Tax- 15(3)(1) Uhde House, Room No.460, Vs. 4Th Floor, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (W.), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400083. M. K. Road, Pan: Aaacu1416H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M. M. Golvala A/W. Shri Hormuzd Jamshedji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Its Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059614356(1) Dated 11/01/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golvala a/w. Shri HormuzdFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH