Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(24)(x) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 of the 2,270 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(24)(x)

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.
350 ITR 327 · 2013 · High Court
425
citing judgments

Deduction for employee contributions to EPF/ESI is allowable under section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), irrespective of the due dates under the respective welfare fund statutes.

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 616 · 2013 · High Court
304
citing judgments

No disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B for delayed payment of employee's contributions to ESI or PF if these amounts are deposited by the assessee on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). This aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions for allowability.

M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO
43 Taxmann.com 33 · 2014 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds are an allowable deduction if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return under section 139(1), even if the payment is made beyond the due date specified by the respective welfare fund Acts, as per the provisions of section 43B.

13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn
223 Taxmann 398 · 2014 · High Court
220
citing judgments
CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited
366 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court
206
citing judgments

Employees' contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B if deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, even if deposited after the expiry of the statutory time period specified in the applicable fund's statute.

Judgments on Section 2(24)(x)

Brij Gopal Construction Co. P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1004/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1051/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratham Motors Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम Suite No. 702, Nilgiri Place, 9 – Bara Khamba Road, Vs. Circle : 20 (1) New Delhi–110 001. Pan No. Aaccp4397E New Delhi. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : N O N E; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R.; A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1069/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manoj Kumar Srivastav Income Tax Officer, बनाम 26-A, Block 7,Gokul Dham Society Lig Flats, Sector : 135, Noida, Vs. Ward : 49 (3) Gautam Buddha Nagar (U.P.) Pan No. Alnpk4727G New Delhi. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : N O N E; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R.; A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1182/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Seagull Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम D-3, Lajpat Nagar-1, Circle : 23 (2) New Delhi–110 024. New Delhi. Vs. Pan No. Aabcs2833D

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. Sonal Saraf

The appeal stands disposed of on the aforesaid ground and

ITAT/58/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 29, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De,, Adv. …For The Appellant Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Challenging The Order Dated March 1, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 100/Kol?2011 & Co. 13/Kol/2011 For The Assessment Year 2006-07, I.T.A. No. 532/Kol/2012 & 217/Kol/2012 For The Assessment Year 2007-08 & I.T.A. No. 533/Kol/2012 & 218/Kol/2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “(A) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Employees’ Contribution For Provident Fund U/S 36(1)(Va) R-W 2(24)(X) Ignoring The Fact That The Employees’ Contribution To The Pf Was Supposed To Be Deposited By The Employer Within The Due Date As Specified In The Pf Act Failing

Section 115JSection 14Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)Section 7

Online Computer & Services, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Durgapur

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

ITA 156/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 Online Computer & Ito, Ward-1(1), Services Durgapur B-212, Bengal Shristi Vs. Complex, City Centre, Durgapur – 713 216. Pan: Aadfo 0585 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Kausik K. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.08.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case The Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 1,27,428/- On Account Of Late Payment Of Pf & Esi When The Same Was Paid Within Time Allowed U/S 139(1) Of The Act & The Same May Be Please Be Allowed. 2. For That The Ao May Please Be Directed To Allow Credit Of Tds Of Rs. 18,591/- Relevant To The Year Under Appeal.”

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kausik K. Das, SR. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Kanknarrah Company Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 199/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jun 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Palashbari Tea Company Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 173/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.173/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Palashbari Tea Company Limited....…......................................……….……Appellant Banarhat Jalpaiguri, Palashbari Tea Garden, Jalpaiguri-735202. [Pan:Aabcp8266F] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Jalpaiguri……….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R & Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 8, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 8, 2022

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Charchco Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Secure Offset Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, Cen.Cir. 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 607/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blem.A. No. 51/Kol/2022 A/O I.T.A. No. 607/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Secure Offset Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 3(2), Kolkata Vs Ew-3, Dhulagarh Sankrail Howrah - 711313 [Pan : Aancs9669P]

For Appellant: Shri Varat Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Anil Kumar Sharma, Haryana vs. Circle-44(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1830/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Adani Hazira Port Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed subject to direction

ITA 498/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 498/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2018-19 Adani Hazira Port Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., Adani House, Vs. Cpc, Nr. Mithakhali Six Roads, Bangalore. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jamesh Kurian, C.I.T, D.R with Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Lsc Steels Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 56/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Lsc Steels Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 5-2-196/1, Of Income Tax, Near Ravi Weigh Bridge Circle – 16(1), Distillery Road Hyderabad. Secunderabad Hyderabad-500003 Pan : Aabcl2762J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Mutha Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.11.2021 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For The Ay 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 47 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee, For Which Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Hearing Both The Sides, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Narender Agarwal, M/S Jr Forgings 39/A/1, Ida Balanagar Hyderabad 500037, Telangana India vs. ITO Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 38/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Narender Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-11(3) Prop M/S. Jr Forgings Hyderabad 39/A/1, Ida Balanagar Hyderabad-500 037 Pan : Aampa4460G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Krishnan Revenue By: Shri T.Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2021 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For The Ay 2019-20. 2. There Is A Delay Of 25 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With The Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri KrishnanFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Padmavati Decor Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Begaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2258/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2258/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Padmavati Décor Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit-Cpc 606, 6Th Floor, Vileparle 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Vs. Shree Siddhivinay Sra Cha No.48/148/2, Shraddhananad Road, Vile Beratenaagrahara Begur, Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangaluru. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp5034F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mani Jain Revenue By: Shri Sanyam Joshi (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In National Faceless Appeal [Nfac], Delhi Dated 08.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanyam Joshi (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Peacefort Chem India Engg. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2127/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2127/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Peacefort Chem India Engg. बिधम/ Dcit-Cpc, Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 104, Sumerkendra, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp7161P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya Revenue By: Shri Jagdish Jangid (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 30.07.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Oam Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Dir, CPC, Bengalurl

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2060/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2060/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Oam Industries (India) Pvt. बिधम/ Asst. Director, Cpc Ltd. Centralized Processing Vs. 601, Indira Apartment, Centre, Income Tax Tejpal Scheme Road, Vile Department, Bengaluru- Parle, East, Mumbai- 560500, Karnataka. 400057. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco8897J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hitesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Jagdish Jangid (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 09.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Shakun Sales Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assessing Officer 4(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 14/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

Shakun Sales Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assessing Officer 4(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 13/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

Dharmendra Tiwari, Lucknow vs. The Assessing Officer 4(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 12/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Dharmendra Tiwari V. The Assessing Officer 4(1) 24, Akansha Eldeco Udyan Ii Lucknow Uttratia Lucknow Tan/Pan:Adfpt4416R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. Rupani Footcare Private Limited, Kanpur Nagar vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 146/LKW/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Rupani Footcare V. The Income Tax Officer Private Limited Ward 2(3)(1) 122/334, Shastri Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr1354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Neeta Tiwari, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer 4(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 125/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Neeta Tiwari V. The Assessing Officer 4(2) 24, Akansha Lucknow Eldeco Udyan Ii Uttratia, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afopt6232J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Lucknow

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

ITA 121/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)