← All Phrases

“Section 170(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 170Section 170(1)(a)8 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 170(1)(a) is CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170), cited in 1,158 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 170(1)(a)

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd.
242 ITR 114 · 2000 · High Court
238
citing judgments

Employee contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund or ESI, are deductible under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act if paid before the due date for filing the return of income, even if paid after the due date specified in the respective welfare fund statute.

State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd.
269 ITR 282 · 2004 · High Court
176
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI are deductible if deposited with the authorities before the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective fund's Act.

100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd.
61 Taxmann.com 119 · 2015 · High Court
168
citing judgments

An amendment clarifying the disallowance of employee contributions under sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is prospective. Therefore, before such amendment, employee contributions paid before the due date for filing the income tax return are deductible.

Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 323 · 2010 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

Membership rights and business contracts, as 'business or commercial rights of similar nature' to a license or franchise, qualify as intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT
247 CTR 500 · 2012 · High Court
114
citing judgments

An assessment framed in the name of a company that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation is invalid, even if the amalgamated company participated in the proceedings. Such a defect cannot be cured under section 292B of the Income-tax Act.

Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT
345 ITR 421 · 2012 · High Court
97
citing judgments

Business contracts and commercial rights of similar nature qualify as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) and are eligible for depreciation. The decision also affirms that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. DCIT
234 ITR 170 · 1998 · High Court
71
citing judgments

Reopening an assessment is not permissible without fresh tangible material, merely on a change of opinion or a fresh application of mind to the same facts.

Judgments citing Section 170(1)(a)

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Dnj Creation LLP, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed

ITA 4329/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 92C

which is not applicable in the present case. Further, Chapter-XV (section 159-170) provides the mechanism for assessment in case of succession. Section 170(1)(a) of the Act mandates that predecessor shall be assessed in respect of income up to the date of succession, in the name

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda (E- Vijaya Bank), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2583/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292B

previous year preceding the date of succession would be Previous Year 2019- 2020 [relevant to Assessment Year 2020-2021]. Therefore, Section 170(1)(a), 170(1)(b) and 170(2) of the Act would have application for the purpose of framing assessment for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 relevant

Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is

ITA 2534/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292B

previous year preceding the date of succession would be Previous Year 2019- 2020 [relevant to Assessment Year 2020-2021]. Therefore, Section 170(1)(a) 170(1)(b) and 170(2) of the Act would have application for the purpose of framing assessment for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 relevant

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Birla Group Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all

ITA 6373/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 170(1)(a)Section 292B

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), while deciding the appeal, has not appreciated the provision of section 170(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating ... ground that, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without discussing merits, and without appreciating provision of section 292B of the Act, section 170(1)(a) of the Act. The revenue also placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Private

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Birla Group Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all

ITA 6371/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 170(1)(a)Section 292B

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), while deciding the appeal, has not appreciated the provision of section 170(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating ... ground that, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without discussing merits, and without appreciating provision of section 292B of the Act, section 170(1)(a) of the Act. The revenue also placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Private

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Birla Group Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all

ITA 6369/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 170(1)(a)Section 292B

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), while deciding the appeal, has not appreciated the provision of section 170(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating ... ground that, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without discussing merits, and without appreciating provision of section 292B of the Act, section 170(1)(a) of the Act. The revenue also placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Private

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Birla Group Holding Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all assessment years under consideration stands dismissed

ITA 6368/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 170(1)(a)Section 292B

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), while deciding the appeal, has not appreciated the provision of section 170(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating ... ground that, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without discussing merits, and without appreciating provision of section 292B of the Act, section 170(1)(a) of the Act. The revenue also placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Private

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Birla Group Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all

ITA 6353/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 170(1)(a)Section 292B

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), while deciding the appeal, has not appreciated the provision of section 170(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating ... ground that, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without discussing merits, and without appreciating provision of section 292B of the Act, section 170(1)(a) of the Act. The revenue also placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Private