Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Section 38 in The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 [Entire Act]
THE FINANCE ACT, 2021
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Raghuvir Synthetics ... on 26 February, 2014
The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT-1 vs
Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd 120171 394 ITR1(SC) has not been
dealt with in the orders of the coordinate Benches, in particular
Electrical India vs ADIT CPC which have been cited in
paragraph 14 the order nor is the ground covered by the decision
of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate
Services (P) Ltd vs CIT -1 [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) as
the order in that case was under Section 143(3).
Checkmate Services P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 12 October, 2022
6. It is also submitted that the appeal which was posted on 7th
November 2023 was treated as heard without any oral arguments on
the issues raised. The appeal was dismissed on November 9th 2023
on the basis that the grounds raised therein are covered by the
decision of the Apex Court in Checkmate Services (P) Limited vs
CIT-1 [2022] 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC) when it should now be
evident that the same is not true. The Hon'ble Bench may therefore
consider restoring the appeal for rehearing, in the interests of justice."
The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952
Section 143 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Dharmaraj Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs Dcit , Cpc , Bangalore on 4 November, 2022
The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT-1 vs
Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd 120171 394 ITR1(SC) has not been
dealt with in the orders of the coordinate Benches, in particular
Electrical India vs ADIT CPC which have been cited in
paragraph 14 the order nor is the ground covered by the decision
of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate
Services (P) Ltd vs CIT -1 [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) as
the order in that case was under Section 143(3).
Engineering Analysis Centre Of ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 March, 2021
5. Considering the rival submissions and going through the entire
written submissions/summary of the issues filed by the assessee, the
disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act made by the CPC u/s. 143(1)
has been dealt by the Tribunal in para 10 & 11 of the order wherein
after relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT-1, [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178
(SC) and other decisions of the coordinate Bench, the Tribunal
dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. We find no mistake
apparent on the face of record.
Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs The Addl. Cit, Range-1,, Baroda on 31 January, 2023
4. The Honourable Tribunal has similarly not found any such
"due date" under the ES1 Act. The Honourable Tribunal has also
not found any employee's account in the ESI Fund to which the
employees' contribution could be credited ("deposited" as per the
term used by the Honourable Supreme Court in Checkmate
Services Private Limited vs CIT). Hence, paragraph 12 and 13 of
the order be modified to grant deduction for Rs. 17,792 being the
Employees' Contribution disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va).