DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

iv) Date of payment of further demand 1-5-1990 of Rs. 1,00,000 [col. (iii) minus (ii)] (v) Tax determined as a result to Rs. 3,20,000 appellate order under section 250 on 30-9-1990 (vi) Refund due as a result of appeal Rs. 80,000 (vii) Date of grant of actual refund

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

iv) Date of payment of further demand 1-5-1990 of Rs. 1,00,000 [col. (iii) minus (ii)] (v) Tax determined as a result to Rs. 3,20,000 appellate order under section 250 on 30-9-1990 (vi) Refund due as a result of appeal Rs. 80,000 (vii) Date of grant of actual refund

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

iv) Date of payment of further demand 1-5-1990 of Rs. 1,00,000 [col. (iii) minus (ii)] (v) Tax determined as a result to Rs. 3,20,000 appellate order under section 250 on 30-9-1990 (vi) Refund due as a result of appeal Rs. 80,000 (vii) Date of grant of actual refund

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

SUGANDH,MORADABAD vs. ITD, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sugandh, Vs Itd, Jawahar Market, G.M.D.Road, Cpc, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001. Bengaluru. Pan-Aaefs7109J Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2021

condoned. 4.2 The observations of the AO, submissions of the appellant and the material on record have been considered. In this case, the appellant had made payments from the contributions made by the employees to Provident Fund and ESI fund, in various month of financial year 2017-18. The appellant claimed these payments as deductions from the total income

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

iv) of section 143(1) and that the jurisdiction of HC & SC was in favour of assessee at the time of processing under that section. Thus, it was debatable issue at the time of processing of return. 4) That the authorities below erred both in law and facts by disallowing the employee's contribution of EPF/ESI. Hence, same is allowable

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

iv) of section 143(1) and that the jurisdiction of HC & SC was in favour of assessee at the time of processing under that section. Thus, it was debatable issue at the time of processing of return. 4) That the authorities below erred both in law and facts by disallowing the employee's contribution of EPF/ESI. Hence, same is allowable

RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

iv). Therefore the Ld. A.R. Shri Pankaj Jain advised us that the matter has attained finality in the light of decision of Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited v. CIT dated 12.10.2022, 448 ITR 518. 4. That, when we sought the legal opinion in this regard from Dr. Adv. (C.A.) Amit Kumar Gupta, then we came

RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

iv). Therefore the Ld. A.R. Shri Pankaj Jain advised us that the matter has attained finality in the light of decision of Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited v. CIT dated 12.10.2022, 448 ITR 518. 4. That, when we sought the legal opinion in this regard from Dr. Adv. (C.A.) Amit Kumar Gupta, then we came

BRIJBASI ART PRESS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi M/S. Brijbasi Art Press Ltd., E- 46/11, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase- Ii, New Delhi Pan :Aaacb0044L (Appellant) (Respondent)

iv) of sub-s. (1) deals with deductions on account of contribution towards a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund made by the assessee as an employer, subject to certain limits and also subject to certain conditions as the CBDT may think fit to specify. Clause (v) of sub-s. (1) of s. 36 enables the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MODIPON LTD.

iv) of sub-section (1) deals with deductions on account of contribution towards a recognized provident fund or .an approved superannuation fund made by the assessee as an employer, subject to certain limits and also subject to certain conditions as the CBDT may think fit to specify. Clause (v) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 enables the assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AIMIL Limited

iv) of sub-section (1) deals with deductions on account of contribution towards a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund made by the assessee as an employer, subject to certain limits and also subject to certain conditions as the CBDT may think fit to specify. Clause (v) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 enables the assessee

VINOD KUMAR SHARMA ,DELHI vs. AO WARD 71(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condonation of delay and mentioned that all the grounds of Appeal remained the same. 2. The the CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in upholding disallowance of Rs.24,53,910 by the AO Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) on the ground that there was delay in deposit of employees contribution under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 disregarding

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

iv) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited [or inventory valued] under sub-section (2A) of section 142 and— (a) ending with the last date on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of such audit [or inventory valuation] under that sub-section; or (b) where

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

iv) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited [or inventory valued] under sub-section (2A) of section 142 and— (a) ending with the last date on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of such audit [or inventory valuation] under that sub-section; or (b) where

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

iv) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited [or inventory valued] under sub-section (2A) of section 142 and— (a) ending with the last date on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of such audit [or inventory valuation] under that sub-section; or (b) where

PRISMA,MORADABAD vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), MORADABAD

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

condoned. Copy of deposited challans are enclosed. The intention of the assessee was never malafide and he always thought about the welfare of employees as they all are part of his extended business family. The intention of legislature is also not to penalize the assessee by imposing tax, but it motivates to deposit tax in time, and assessee did major