M/S KANAKA POLYPACK PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Acit, Vs. Xvi, Keezhmad Panchayat, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Ashokapuram,Aluva, Kochi – 682 018. Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 101. Pan :Aafck 1498 J Assessee Respondent

disallowance to the extent of employee’s contribution. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a condonation petition in this regard. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

section (43B), the provisions of gratuity payable to approved gratuity fund is allowable as deduction u/s. 40A(7) of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Common Welfare Trust (P.) Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 290 (Ker.). 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that in absence of claim

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

section (43B), the provisions of gratuity payable to approved gratuity fund is allowable as deduction u/s. 40A(7) of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Common Welfare Trust (P.) Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 290 (Ker.). 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that in absence of claim

KAVUNGAL VAREED ITTEERA,KERALA vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2020-21

disallowance since the contribution to PF & ESI was made before the due date of filing the return. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has considered the issue of whether the employees contribution paid before

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

disallowance in the present Assessment Year. 22. In order to remedy this position and to remove hardships which were being caused to the assessees belonging to such second category, amendments have been made in the provisions of Section 40(a) (ia) by the Finance Act, 2010. 23. Section 40(a)(ia), as amended by Finance Act, 2010, with effect from

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

43B of the Act which provides for deduction on payment basis does not override the specific provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the Assessee and therefore, Ground No. 12 & 13 raised by the Assessee are dismissed. Ground No.14 & 15 18. Ground No.14 & 15 raised

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance was made u/s. 43B of the Act. As per the reasons recorded, we do not find any mention of or reference to the provisions of section

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance was made u/s. 43B of the Act. As per the reasons recorded, we do not find any mention of or reference to the provisions of section

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance could not have been ordered invoking Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. This contention was sought to be substantiated relying on the judgments in Allied Motor (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677/91 Taxman 205 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 (SC). 12. The second proviso to Section

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance could not have been ordered invoking Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. This contention was sought to be substantiated relying on the judgments in Allied Motor (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677/91 Taxman 205 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 (SC). 12. The second proviso to Section

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance could not have been ordered invoking Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. This contention was sought to be substantiated relying on the judgments in Allied Motor (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677/91 Taxman 205 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 (SC). 12. The second proviso to Section

THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, TIRUR, TIRUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Malappuram District Co- Operative Bank Limited Head Office The Malappuram District Cooperative Bank Deputy Commissioner Malappuram Of Income-Tax Vs. Uphill Cpc Malappuram Bangalore Kerala 676 505 Pan No : Aaaat3207B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hameed Hussain, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By Nfac Delhi Dated 9.11.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Adding The Pf Contribution Amounting To Rs. 59,24,494/- By Virtue 36(1)(Va) Of.The Income Tax Act. This Will Be Covered The Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank Limited, Malappuram

43B is a non-obstante clause and would have overriding effect and application over the other provisions. Section 30 of EPF&MP Act is also pointed out to argue that whether it be the contribution of the employer or the employee, it is the liability of the employer and, hence, the employer's and employee's contribution cannot be treated

M/S.STATE BANK OF INDIA(SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of provision made for sick leave by invoking the provisions of section 43B whereas said provision for sick leave

M/S.STATE BANK OF INDIA(SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of provision made for sick leave by invoking the provisions of section 43B whereas said provision for sick leave

SOFTWARE ASSOCIATES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Software Associates Informaton .......... Appellant Technology P. Ltd. 3/962, Mascot, Zilla Bungalow Road Nadakkav, Kozhikode 673011 [Pan: Aahcs2614J] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1(1), Kozhikode

section 43B of the Act. Therefore, the matter is set aside to the file of the AO for verification whether it had claimed any deduction in the earlier years and disallowed

KAIRALI EXPORTS,KILIMANOOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 4 M/s.Kairali Exports In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned

M/S SREELEKSHMI CASHEW COMPANY,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysreelekshmi Cashew Company The Income Tax Officer Lekshmi Prabha, Kadappakkada Ward - 1 & Tps, Kollam Vs. Kollam 691008 [Pan:Aazfs1211Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri T.V. Hariharan, Ca Respondent By: Dr. Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

disallowed on the ground of it having been deposited by the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, i.e., the time limit applicable for deposit of employer’s contribution to Employees’ Welfare Fund, deductible under section 37(1) r.w.s. 43B

SUD-CHEMIE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIR 2(1), ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

section 43B have no application to the facts of the case as no liability got crystalised during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Thus, this ground of appeal stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal No. 3 challenges hew addition on account of export incentives for the reasons stated by us in ITA No. 989/Coch.2024. This issue

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 115JB. Further, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,22,943/- which was paid to Mr. Pradeep Kumar for the supply of latex. The AO treated the said amount as payment made towards the work done by him and therefore TDS should have been deducted and for the failure to deduct tax he disallowed the same