DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue of shares (connected to 4 ground no.8 in assessee's appeal) State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore prior to merger) 2. The assessee is a subsidiary of State Bank of India

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue of shares (connected to 4 ground no.8 in assessee's appeal) State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore prior to merger) 2. The assessee is a subsidiary of State Bank of India

BRILLPHARMA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC,BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of Rs.8,92,829, on account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) / Employees State Insurance Corporation Scheme (ESIC) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24

KETAN BROTHERS DIAMONDS EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of Rs.32,140, on account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24

M/S. SUPER TILES & MARBLES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance of Rs 4,24

SWAROOPSINGH BHADURSINGH RATHORE,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance of Rs 4,24

SWAROOPSING BHADURSINGH RATHORE,THANE vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance of Rs 4,24

M/S PAPER RECYCLE ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance of Rs 4,24

SAVANI HERITAGE CONSERVATION PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance of Rs 4,24

DICITEX HOME FURNISHING PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 1 (3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) & Could Be Allowed As Deduction.

section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance of Rs 4,24

MUPPIDATHY SIVAN THEVAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CPC, , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance of Rs 4,24

MUPPIDATHY SIVAN THEVAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CPC, , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance of Rs 4,24

NILESH V. METHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 32(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24

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

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24

M/S VAISHALI PHARMA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CPC, BANGALURU

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

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24

SURANA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CPC, BANGALORE

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

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24

MASTER POLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, MUMBAI

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

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24

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

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24