SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

va) read with section 43B of the finance act, 2021 by inserting explanation 2 is prospective in nature and would be applicable only from 1 April 2021 and hence not applicable from assessment year 2012 – 13 under consideration. 20. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned lower authorities and submitted that the decision of the honourable

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

va) read with section 43B of the finance act, 2021 by inserting explanation 2 is prospective in nature and would be applicable only from 1 April 2021 and hence not applicable from assessment year 2012 – 13 under consideration. 20. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned lower authorities and submitted that the decision of the honourable

THAMANNA ,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-2(1) , MYSORE

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

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

disallowances made are beyond the scope and ambit of adjustment provided under section 143(1)(a) while processing the returns of income. ♦ At the time of filing of returns of income by the assessee for the respective assessment years, the law prevailing on the said date allowed the assessee to claim deduction of employees' contribution

MOOG MOTION CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

23. In any case, Form 67 was filed by the appellant and the claim was made in the revised return of income. Hence, non-furnishing of Form 67 before the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act cannot be fatal to the claim of relief u/s 90 of the Act. Attention is drawn to CBDT Circular

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

23 of 37 intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and was not a variation proposed by the AO in the draft assessment order passed under section 144C(1) of the Act. The learned DRP noted that the CPC determined the disallowance, not the AO, and since the DRP's jurisdiction is limited to the variations made

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

23 of 40 non cogit ad impossibilia are relied upon. These legal principles apply directly to the assessee’s case such as: - State of Rajasthan vs. Shamsher Singh (1985 AIR 1082) - State of MP vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7SCC 639 24.3 The assessee also submitted that employees’ and employer’s contributions both fall within the scope of section

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

23 of 40 non cogit ad impossibilia are relied upon. These legal principles apply directly to the assessee’s case such as: - State of Rajasthan vs. Shamsher Singh (1985 AIR 1082) - State of MP vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7SCC 639 24.3 The assessee also submitted that employees’ and employer’s contributions both fall within the scope of section

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

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

23,830/- 2018-19 578/Bang/2023 29.10.2018 2,08,09,950/- 2018-19 579/Bang/2023 30.10.2019 2,92,81,530/- 2019-20 580/Bang/2023 07.01.2021 4,29,91,760/- 2020-21 5.6 The ld. A.R. submitted that, the aforesaid returns were processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and communication for adjustment proposed u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act was issued

SRI. MANIKANDAN VAZHUKKAPAR KUMARAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

section 36(1)(va) to be restricted to the contributions to the relevant fund paid beyond the due date under the relevant law, as indicated in the independent auditors certificate dated 4.10.2023. 4. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

23 of 40\nITA No.652-653-980/Bang/2025\n\nnon cogit ad impossibilia are relied upon. These legal principles apply\ndirectly to the assessee's case such as:\n\nState of Rajasthan vs. Shamsher Singh (1985 AIR 1082)\nState of MP vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7SCC 639\n\n24.3 The assessee also submitted that employees' and employer's\ncontributions both fall within

M/S. SUJANIX PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Meber & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 36(1)(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect applies w.e.f. 1-4-2021 only, impugned disallowance for assessment year 2019-20 was not sustainable. 11. Appellant denies itself liable to be charged interest u/s 234 of the Act from the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The appellant craves leave

M/S. SUJANIX PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Meber & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 36(1)(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect applies w.e.f. 1-4-2021 only, impugned disallowance for assessment year 2019-20 was not sustainable. 11. Appellant denies itself liable to be charged interest u/s 234 of the Act from the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The appellant craves leave

MUNIYALLAPPA BHARATHI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowances of Rs. 23,03,258/-under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the fact and circumstances of the case

ARIBA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

23. The learned AR before us submitted that there was no appeal preferred against the adjustment made under section 143(1) of the Act as the case of the assessee was picked up under scrutiny. Therefore, the assessee was of the view that the issue arising from the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act can be agitated

BHARATH INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance for delay deposited of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI can not be made as per u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3. The ld. DR submitted that the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT-1, [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held

MAHAVEER BULK CARRIERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the I.T.Act. 2. None was present on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, I proceed to dispose off this appeal after hearing the learned DR. The ld. DR submitted that the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services

M/S. BROTHERS OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,BASHETTYHALLI vs. THE ITO, WARD- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

va] of the Act indicated in the Tax Audit Report as mere details of the payments made were set-out and therefore, the impugned addition made u/s. 143[1] of the Act is outside the scope of the adjustments capable of being made u/s 143[1][a][iv] of the Act and therefore, the same deserves to be deleted

SRI. RAMDURG CHANNA BASAVANA GOUD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

23,42,878/- being the employees share of PF and similarly sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 55,711/- being the employees share of ESI, both of which was due on 15/08/2019, which was a national holiday and therefore, the payment made by the appellant on the next working day i.e., 16/08/2019 cannot be considered as a belated payment to invoke