FLYING FABRICATION ,GURGAON vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURUR

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

FLYING FABRICATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

43B on account of delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI. 2. That on this issue there are no. of judicial Pronouncements in favour of the assessee, including & delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahbad, being the jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Sagun Foundary (P) Limited vs CIT Kanpur. 3. That on the facts

NEELKANTH INFERTILITY AND IVF HOSPITAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-1, GURGAON

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

MOHAMMED MUJEEB,DELHI vs. WARD-66(4), DELHI

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

BMK BUSINESS HOTELS & RESORTS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

MOHAMMED MUJEEB,DELHI vs. WARD-69(4), DELHI

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

KAILASH HOSPITAL & METERNITY ,UTTARPRADESH vs. WARD 1(1)(3), UTTARPARDESH

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

NARANG SCIENTIFIC WORKS,C-255 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

MOHAN SERVICES,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

SURENDER GAHLOT ,HARYANA vs. WARD 4(3), HARYANA

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

JAMAN LAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

M/S BALAJI ALUMINIUM ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

MULTI MAX ENGINEERING WORK PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. CIRCLE 17(2), DELHI

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

RAJESH KUMAR ,FARIDABAD vs. WARD 2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special

FAARIHA TYAGI ,HARYANA vs. WARD 1(4), GURGAON

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

Delay condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special