Which cases are most cited on Section 38?

Pr. CIT v. M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd. (115 Taxmann.com 340) — 46 citing judgments; Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT (237 ITR 617) — 34 citing judgments; Sarala Devi (K.) (Smt.) v. Commissioner of Income-tax (222 ITR 211) — 18 citing judgments; CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (287 ITR 354) — 13 citing judgments; 201(14). CIT v. Rishikesh Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (253 ITR 310) — 12 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 38?

BharatTax indexes 25 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 38 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 38 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 38 of the Income Tax Act?

Pr. CIT v. M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd. (115 Taxmann.com 340) is the decision most relied on for Section 38, cited in 46 judgments. Employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI must be deposited by the due date prescribed under the respective welfare legislations (e.g., within 15 days of the month-end salary payment) for a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act. Failure to do so results in disallowance, even if the deposit is made before the due date for filing the income tax return under section 139(1).

The decision most relied on for Section 38 is Pr. CIT v. M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd. (115 Taxmann.com 340), cited in 46 of the 25 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 38

Pr. CIT v. M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd.

115 Taxmann.com 340 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI must be deposited by the due date prescribed under the respective welfare legislations (e.g., within 15 days of the month-end salary payment) for a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act. Failure to do so results in disallowance, even if the deposit is made before the due date for filing the income tax return under section 139(1).

Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT

237 ITR 617 · 1999 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Where income is diverted by an overriding title, the assessee has no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194C. Payment made to a trustee, even if deposited in the assessee's bank account before being paid out, is not the assessee's income, and therefore, TDS is not applicable.

Sarala Devi (K.) (Smt.) v. Commissioner of Income-tax

222 ITR 211 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.

287 ITR 354 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

201(14). CIT v. Rishikesh Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

253 ITR 310 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

(i). Devarayapatana Thimmappa Paramesha v. DCIT

137 Taxmann.com 62 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

Solar Automobile India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCTT

64 DTR 34 · High Court

citing judgments

ICICI Securities Limited v. ITO (International Taxation)

198 ITD 214 · 2023 · ITAT

citing judgments

TRO v. Bharat Hotels Ltd.

28 DTR 27 · Reported

citing judgments

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Suzlon Energy Ltd.

423 ITR 608 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 38

SHREE GANESH BUILDERS LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, NAGPUR

ITA 625/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

For Appellant: Shri Himesh Demble, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

LINKEDIN TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI -4 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2492/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 195Section 263Section 40

KAMAKSHI JUTE INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

ITA 69/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ANIMESH MUKHERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), DURGAPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1902/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ITO (TDS) ALWAR, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABA MOHAN RAMJI KALIKHOLI WALAMILKPUR GURJAR, ALWAR

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

ITA 746/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 38

ITO(TDS) ALWAR, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABA MOHAN RAMJI KALIKHOLI WALAMILKPUR GURJAR, ALWAR

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

ITA 739/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 38

BHARAT JAIN,SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI vs. AO/ADIT-CPC BENGALURU , CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4986/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbharat Jain, Vs. Adit – Cpc, Flat No.133, Pocket G, Sfs Flats, Bengaluru. Maharaja Agarsen Marg, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110 076. (Pan : Aaapj4180E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate Shri Shivam Jain, Advocate Shri Rajiv Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2024 Date Of Order : 06.08.2024 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.08.2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee For The Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Status Of 2 The Assessee Was Clearly Mentioned As Non-Resident As Residential Status Of The Assessee In Itr 3 Filed On 16.12.2020 With The Acknowledgement No.826193800161220. With The Above Facts On Record, He Submitted That The Authorities Below Proceeded To Apply The Provisions Of Section 44Ada Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For The Reason That Assessee Has Not Maintained Proper Books Of Account For Carrying On The Professional Activities, Therefore, They Applied The Presumptive Tax @ 50%. He Submitted That Provisions Of Section 44Ada Are Not Applicable To The Non-Resident & It Was Wrongly Applied In Assessee’S Case. He Further Submitted That The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal By Observing As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 30Section 44A

ALKA RAJESH VANIGOTA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-52, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69A

SHUSHIL KUMAR GAUTAM,GABHANA ALIGARH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

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

ITA 4/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 30Section 44ASection 69A

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 176/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 24

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI vs. K. RETHINAM, DINDIGUL

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1283/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin,CIT

Section 132(4)

WEST COAST DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE & NURSING HOME,PALGHAR vs. CIT(A), PUNE

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

ITA 148/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeewest Coast Diagnostic Centre Vs Cit(A), Pune-11 & Nursing Home, Aayakar Bhavan, 12, Sadhu Vaswani Main Road, Masoli, Dahanu Road, Pune-411011 Road, Dist. Palghar – 401 602 Pan : Aabfw4712E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 250

CHECKMATE FACILITY AND ELECTRONIS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 706/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

DASHRATH KUMAR SHARMA, JPR ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 7(4), JPR, JAIPUR

ITA 647/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 647/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Dashrath Kumar Sharma 73, Pancholiya Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur – 303 012 बनाम The ITO Vs. Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: EAJPS 0594A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri Hemang Gargieya, Advocate :

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KHAMMAM vs. VARALAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 303/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.303 & 304/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Varalakshmi Ward-1 Constructions Khammam Khammam Pan:Aagfv0744C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Both Dated 22/01/2024 For The A.Ys 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Revenue Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal For These A.Ys. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue For The A.Y 2014-15 Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

M/S. SPL REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1637/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT-DR

Section 154Section 201Section 40

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 782/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 204, Raheja Centre, Free Press Tax,Circle 3(4), Mumbai Journal Marg, Nariman Point World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 Pan : Aaace30836F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 41(2)Section 50