Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.03 seconds)Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Aimil Limited on 25 January, 2005
6. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials
available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to
disallowance of delayed deposit of contribution received by the employees'
towards provident funds and ESI fund. It is an undisputed fact that there
has been delay in the actual deposit of payment to the appropriate
authority but at the same time it was also a fact that all the contributions
received by the assessee from its employees have been deposited before
the due date of filing of return of income. We further find that identical
issue arose in the case of Dee Development Engineers Ltd. (supra) wherein
the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal after considering the decision in the case
of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (supra) decided the issue of the assessee by
observing as under:
Section 143 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Pr.Commissioner Of Income ... vs Praxis Interactive Services Pvt.Ltd on 14 December, 2018
vs CPC (supra) has
followed the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs
Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench of this
Tribunal in the case of Azamgarh Steel & Power Pvt.Ltd.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharat Hotels Ltd. on 30 June, 2016
vs CPC order dated 31.05.2021
wherein Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional
High Court in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. (supra) did not take note of the
judgement rendered in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508
(Del.).
Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Dee Development Engineers Ltd., ... on 8 April, 2021
6. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials
available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to
disallowance of delayed deposit of contribution received by the employees'
towards provident funds and ESI fund. It is an undisputed fact that there
has been delay in the actual deposit of payment to the appropriate
authority but at the same time it was also a fact that all the contributions
received by the assessee from its employees have been deposited before
the due date of filing of return of income. We further find that identical
issue arose in the case of Dee Development Engineers Ltd. (supra) wherein
the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal after considering the decision in the case
of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (supra) decided the issue of the assessee by
observing as under:
Section 244A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Eagle Trans Shipping & Logistics ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 25 July, 2019
4. That CIT(A) grossly erred in discarding the judicial precedents relied
upon by the assessee appellant and confirm addition on relying upon the
judgments of Delhi High Court in the case of 'CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd
(2019) 410 ITR 417 (DeI.HC) and that of Delhi Tribunal in the case of'
Eagle Trans Shipping Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT (2019) 1781TD 849
(Del.Trib)' without appreciating the fact that ratio of decision in the case of
'CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the
assessee appellant's case.