“Section 139(1)”

M/S. Oriental Trading Co., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2329 & 2330/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Cit(A) - Nfac M/S Oriental Trading Co. Mumbai. 1St Floor, Elite House, Punjab बिधम/ Foundry, Near Classic Studio, Vs. Mira Road East, Mumbai-400 107 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaafo7024L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Parikh, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 26.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the due date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well

Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd. (Asol) As A Successor to Accenture Serivces Pvt Ltd (Aspl), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Accenture Solutions The Dy. Commissioner O Pvt. Ltd. (‘Asol’), Income Tax, (As A Successor To Circle 14(1)(1), Accenture Services Pvt. 475, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. (‘Aspl’) Which Has M.K. Road, Merged Into Asol With An Mumbai - 400020 Effective Date Of 1 Vs. December 2016) Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off L.B.S Marg, Mumbai – 400 079 Pan: Aacca8997K (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 )(va) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the said contribution is paid before filing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. 22. Erred in not granting credit of taxes deducted at source of Rs.39,43,015 claimed by the Appellant in its return

B P Marine Academy, Navi Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parelmumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

records, it was found that the assessee has filed Form 10 for both the impugned assessment years after the due date specified under section 139(1) and assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10. However, this fact has not been verified

B P Marine Academy, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

records, it was found that the assessee has filed Form 10 for both the impugned assessment years after the due date specified under section 139(1) and assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10. However, this fact has not been verified

Lake View Hospitality, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CPC, ITO 26(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

upon verification it is found that the VAT liability was paid by the assessee before the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act, then to that extent relief be granted to the assessee under section 43B of the Act. As a result, grounds raised

DCIT, Circle -1, Thane vs. M/S Accura Pharmaquip Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

Jagdamba Service Solution Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) (NFAC)- Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

T K Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

T K Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

Surana Motors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

Master Polishers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

Fortive India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

Fund (PF) after the due date specified in the applicable statute but before the due date of filing income tax return prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. 7. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that the issue stands covered in favour of the Appellant ... dispute that Appellant had deposited the employees‟ contribution of PF and ESI before the due date of filing of Return under Section 139(1) of the Act, though the same were deposited belatedly beyond the due date specified under the respective statutes. The intimation/order under Section 143(1

Nilesh V. Metha, Mumbai vs. DCIT 32(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

M/S Vaishali Pharma Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

M/S. Mazgaon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

Stg Refractory Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-400042 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Karnataka-560500

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

Dy CIT - 8 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tanish Homes & Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Dy