AI Insights
The case involves Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat, the proprietor of M/s. Star Labour Services, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the disallowance of late payment of PF and ESIC contributions. The primary legal issue was whether the late payment of these contributions, which were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return, could be disallowed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal considered various precedents and the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd., which held that such disallowances are valid under section 143(1) if the contributions are not deposited by the due date specified in the respective statutes.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114099 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
09-05-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
08-03-2023
Assessment Year
2019-2020
Appeal Filed On
26-01-2022
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat,905/6/3, GIDC Estate, Makarpura, Vadodara-390010 PAN: AGXPR9528B (Appellant) Vs The Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, Begaluru-560500 (Respondent) Assessee Represented: ShriTushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Pravin Verma, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 09-03-2023 Date of pronouncement : 10-05-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), arising out of the Intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2019-20. ITA No. 25/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2019-20 I.T.A No. 25/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat vs. ACIT, CPC 2 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is late payment of PF and ESIC contribution by the assessee but deposited before the due date of filing of the Income Tax Return and can it be disallowed in the intimation dated 14.07.2020 passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 2.1. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is proprietor of M/s. Star Labour Services engaged in providing Manpower supply services. For the Assessment Year 2019-20, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 25.09.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 1,35,09,600/-. The Return of Income was processed u/s. 143(1), while doing so a communication dated 19.02.2019 was issued to the assessee, why not to make a disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of Rs. 1,79,96,570/- being the late payment of PF and ESIC. However the assessee has not replied to the above communication. Hence intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 14.07.2020 was passed, determining the total income at Rs. 3,16,82,825/- and demanded tax, which was adjusted against the refund due to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre. The Ld. NFAC by a very detailed order confirmed the disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) and thereby dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieve against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not granting sufficient opportunity of hearing, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. I.T.A No. 25/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat vs. ACIT, CPC 3 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance which is without jurisdiction and beyond the permissible adjustments contemplated u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing employee's contribution towards PF and ESI amounting to Rs.1,79,96,570/- u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in not appreciating that amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 are not applicable. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in levying interest u/s.234A/B/C of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 4.1. Ld. Senior Counsel Shri Tushar Hemani appearing for the assessee filed before us a Paper Book as well as a Synopsis and argued that clause 20(b) of Tax Audit Report contains “details of contributions received from employees for various funds (i.e. PF & ESIC) referred to in section 36(1)(v) of the Act” namely “due-date for payment” and “actual date of payment”. The Auditor has merely provided such details as are required to be furnished mandatorily. Clause 20(b) of the Tax Audit Report also contain “details of contributions which have been paid within due date”. 4.2. Thus disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) which is being a “debatable ad controversial issue”, which cannot be adjustable u/s. 143(1) of I.T.A No. 25/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat vs. ACIT, CPC 4 the Act. Various Courts have taken a view on disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) in favour of the assessee as well as against the assessee. The Ld. Senior Counsel thus relied upon the following case laws which are in favour of the assessee on disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act: >Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 408 (Karnataka); > CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 1 - (Bom); > CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. - (2014) 368 ITR 141 (Bom); > Kalpesh Synthetics P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2022) 137 taxmann.com 475 (Mumbai Tribunal); > Kanthi Agency Networks vs. ADIT (Bangalore); (2022) 194 ITD 581 > Punjab Bevel Gears Ltd. vs. DCIT - (20220 188 taxmann.com 299 (Delhi); > Rakesh Janghu vs. CPC (2022) 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi Tribunal); > Vyona Logistics (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2022) 139 taxmann.com 302 (Jaipur); > Paramjeet Singh vs. DCIT - (2022) 138 taxmann.com 147 (Chandigarh Tribunal); 4.3. However the Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in [2014] 366 ITR 170 has decided the issue “against” the assessee. In view of the “conflicting decisions”, it is amply clear that the issue of disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) is a “debatable and controversial issue” which cannot be adjusted u/s. 143(1) of the Act and relied upon decision of the of the Tribunal in the case of Chintoo Creatios Vs. DCIT {2022} 138 taxmann.com 499 (Delhi Tribunal) and A.P. Warehousing Corporation Vs. DCIT (2002) 89 ITD 529 (Hyderabad). 4.4. Further Insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) and Explanation of Section5 to Section 43B of the Act were made by I.T.A No. 25/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat vs. ACIT, CPC 5 amendments brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 which are applicable prospectively and relied upon following cases: > Kanthi Agency Networks vs. ADIT (2022) 194 ITD 581 (Bangalore); > Punjab Bevel Gears Ltd, vs. DCIT-(2022) 188 taxmann.com 299 (Delhi); >Rakesh Janghu vs. CPC (2022) 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi Tribunal); >Vyona Logistics (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2022) 139 taxmann.com 302 (Jaipur); > Paramjeet Singh vs. DCIT - (2022) 138 taxmann.com 147 (Chandigarh Tribunal); 4.5. Thus the Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that there is no indication in the Tax Audit Report on the basis of which disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) can be made. Therefore the adjustment made u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act is liable to be quashed and prayed to allow the assessee’s appeal. 5. Per contra the Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri Urjit Shah appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the Lower Authorities and strongly contended that before making such a disallowance the CPC vide notice dated 10.05.2019 sent communication to the assessee for the proposed disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act which was not responded by the assessee. It is thereafter the CPC passed the intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) on 17.02.2020 making the disallowance. The ld. D.R. further submitted the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 dated 12.10.2022 held as follows: “The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law - in terms of section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by I.T.A No. 25/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat vs. ACIT, CPC 6 Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since it is the deduction from the employees' income and held in trust by the employer. This marked distinction has to be borne while interpreting the obligation of every assessee under section 43B. [Para 53] The reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer's obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. In the case of these liabilities, what constitutes the due date is defined by the statute. Nevertheless, the assessees are given some leeway in that as long as deposits are made beyond the due date, but before the date of filing the return, the deduction is allowed. That, however, cannot apply in the case of amounts which are held in trust, as it is in the case of employees' contributions- which are deducted from their income. They are not part of the assessee employer's income, nor are they heads of deduction per se in the form of statutory pay out. They are others income, monies, only deemed to be income, with the object of ensuring that they are paid within the due date specified in the particular law. They have to be deposited in terms of such welfare enactments. It is upon deposit, in terms of those enactments and on or before the due dates mandated by such concerned law, that the amount which is otherwise retained, and deemed an income, is treated as a deduction. Thus, it is an essential condition for the deduction that such amounts are deposited on or before the due date. If such interpretation were to be adopted, the non obstante clause under section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. [Para 54]” 6. Thus the Ld. D.R. submitted that the disallowance made by the CPC u/s. 143(1) and which was confirmed by Ld. NFAC does not require any interference and the assessee appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. We note that identical issue is dealt by us recently and decided against the assessee by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 342/IND/2022 after taking into account the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the I.T.A No. 25/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat vs. ACIT, CPC 7 case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd., the legal provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act and held as follows: “... 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that firstly, in the audit report, the auditor has not made any specific observation regarding inadmissibility of the claim u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act which was required to be made by the auditors in the Tax Audit Report and the Auditors have only mentioned the “actual dates” and “due dates” of remittance. Accordingly, in view of the Mumbai ITAT decisions in the case of PR Packaging in ITA number 2376/Mum/2022 and Kalpesh Synthetics 137 Taxmann.com 475 (Mumbai), this claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 143(1) of the Act (more specifically under sub-clause (d) to 143(1) of the Act). Secondly, the counsel argued that the issue at the time when the disallowance was made, issue was debatable and accordingly could not be the subject matter of disallowance under section 143(1) of the Act. In response, DR relied upon the observations made by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Regarding the argument that the auditors did not specifically mention in the audit report regarding inadmissibility of claim with respect to contributions received from the employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act, it would be useful to reproduce section 143(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— i) any arithmetical error in the return; (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return: A perusal of section 143(1) of the Act shows that the words used are I.T.A No. 25/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat vs. ACIT, CPC 8 “(iv) disallowance of expenditure ...indicated in the audit report” 6.1 Therefore, there is no specific requirement under section 143(1) of the Act that the auditor has to make a specific observation regarding “ admissibility/inadmissibility” with regard to any claim of expenditure and all that is required under section 143(1) of the Act is that disallowance of such expenditure should be “indicated in the audit report”. Now, on going through the specific clauses of the Tax Auditors Report in Form Number 3CD issued under section 44AB of the Act, we observe that serial number 20(b) of Form Number 3CD, which is specific to allowability of claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, does not require the auditor to make any specific observation regarding admissibility of the amount under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. At the same time, when we observe several other parts of the tax audit report viz. serial number 21(b)-amounts inadmissible under section 40(a), serial number 21(c)-amounts inadmissible under section 40(b)/40(a)(ia) of the Act (ba), serial number 21(e)- the provision for payment of gratuity not allowable under section 40A(7), serial number 21(f)- any sum paid by the assessee as an employer not allowable under section 40A(9), serial number 21(h) amount of deduction inadmissible in terms of section 14A etc, there is a specific requirement that the auditor has to mention whether the expenditure is admissible/allowable or not. However, so far as section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the audit report does not require the auditor to make a specific observation regarding “admissibility/inadmissibility” of the above expenditure. 6.2 Therefore, once the auditor has mentioned the “actual” dates of ESI/PF remittance and the “due” dates of ESI/PF remittance by the assessee u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act at serial number 20(b) of the audit report, then, in our considered view, the requirement of section 143(1) of the Act viz. “disallowance of expenditure ....indicated in the tax audit report” stands satisfied and the Department is permitted to make disallowance in terms of section 143(1) of the Act. 6.3 With regards to the second argument of the counsel for the assessee that at the time when the disallowance was made, the issue was debatable, we observe that the position on this issue has now been unambiguously clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to all assessment years prior to AY 2021- 22 in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021- 22, non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was held in trust by assessee-employer as per section 2(24)(x), thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. The Supreme Court observed that there is a marked difference between nature and character of assessee-employer's contribution and amounts retained by assessee from out of employee's income by way of deduction wherein one is liability to be paid by employer and second is deemed income as per section 2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was not part of assessee-employer's income, thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before I.T.A No. 25/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat vs. ACIT, CPC 9 due date as a condition for deduction. Again the Supreme Court in the case of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 608 (SC), dismissed the SLP of the Assessee against order of High Court that where assessee-company failed to pay employees’ contribution towards EPF and ESI within due date prescribed in respective Acts, deduction under section 36(1)(va) was not allowable. Recently in the case of Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda [2023] 146 taxmann.com 420 (Bangalore - Trib.) the assessee during, financial year 2018-19 (assessment year 2019-20) made payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF beyond due date specified under relevant Act and claimed deduction of same under section 36(1)(va). The Assessing Officer made disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF while electronically processing return of income under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The ITAT held that disallowance under section 143(1)(a) was valid in view of Supreme Court's decision in case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 and the assessee will not be entitled to deduction of belated payment of ESI and PF of employees' share of contribution as per provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Again, recently Pune ITAT in the case of Cemetile Industries v. ITO [2022] 145 taxmann.com 209 (Pune-Trib.) held that where assessee-employer deposited amount of employees contribution towards employees' provident fund and employees' state insurance corporation beyond due date stipulated in respective Acts, disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) was justified. The ITAT further held that adjustment under section 143(1)(a) by means of disallowance made for late deposit of employees' share to relevant funds beyond date prescribed under respective Acts was proper. 6.4 In view of the above observations respectfully following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Ltd supra and Harrisons Malayalam Ltd supra and in the light of our observations, we hereby dismiss the assessee’s appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 7.1. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment is being followed by the Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Strides Arcolab Ltd. reported in [2023] 147 taxmann.com 202 (SC) and Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in [2022] 145 taxmann.com 608 following Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. held that non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was not part of assessee-employer's income and, thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. I.T.A No. 25/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat vs. ACIT, CPC 10 8. The next contention of the assessee CPC should not have made the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) in 143(1) proceedings which is a debatable and controversial issue by different High Courts. In this connection, the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) deals with the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments namely “(ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return”. Thus we are of the considered opinion as per the first proviso to section 143(1)(a), CPC had given a communication dated 19.02.2019 to the assessee, why not to make a disallowance 36(1)(va) of Rs. 1,79,96,570/- being the late payment of PF and ESIC. However the assessee has not responded to the communication issued by the CPC. It is, thereafter as per section 143(1)(a)(ii), being an incorrect claim made by the assessee, which is apparent from the information filed in the Return of Income, thus the CPC rightly made the disallowance, which is well within the provisions of law. 8.1. Further the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Savleen Kaur vs. ITO in ITA No. 2249/DEL/2022 dated 09- 01-2023 considered the Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Supreme Court Judgment and the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) held as follows: “.... 12. A perusal of the afore-stated provisions show that at every stage in sub- section (1) of the Act, the return submitted by the assessee forms the foundation, with respect to which, if any of the inconsistencies referred to in various sub- clauses are found, appropriate adjustments are to be made. It is an open secret that hardly 3 to 5% of the returns are selected for scrutiny assessment, out of which, more than 50% are because of AIR Information under CASS and the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the reasons for scrutiny selection and such cases are called Limited Scrutiny cases and only the remaining returns are taken up for complete scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. 13. Meaning thereby, that exercise of power under sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act leading to the passing of an order under subsection (3) thereof, is to be I.T.A No. 25/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat vs. ACIT, CPC 11 undertaken where it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated income or has not computed excessive loss, or has not under paid the tax in any manner, 14. If any narrow interpretation is given to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd [supra], it would not only defeat the very purpose of the enactment of the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act but also defeat the very purpose of the Legislators and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be made redundant because there would be discrimination and chaos, in as much as, those returns which are processed by the CPC would go free even if the employees’ contribution is deposited after the due date and in some cases the employer may not even deposit the employees’ contribution and those whose returns have been scrutinized and assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act would have to face the disallowance. 15. This can neither be the intention of the Legislators nor the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to be interpreted in such a way so as to create such discrimination amongst the tax payers. Such interpretation amounts to creation of class [tax payer] within the class [tax payer] meaning thereby that those tax payers who are assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act would have to face disallowance because of the delay in deposit of contribution and those tax payers who have been processed and intimated u/s 143(1) of the Act would go scot- free even if there is delay in deposit of contribution and even if they do not deposit the contribution. 16. We are of the considered view that the ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is equally applicable to the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and, therefore, the decision of the co-ordinate bench relied upon by the assessee is distinguishable. Therefore, respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra], all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed and that of the revenue is allowed.” 9. Respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view, the disallowance of late payment of PF & ESIC made u/s. 143(1) is valid in law. Thus the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are devoid of merits. The case laws relied by the assessee are prior to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Thus the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby dismissed. I.T.A No. 25/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat vs. ACIT, CPC 12 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10-05-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 10/05/2023 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद
Other Referred Cases
Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd., CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., Kalpesh Synthetics P. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Kanthi Agency Networks vs. ADIT, Punjab Bevel Gears Ltd. vs. DCIT, Rakesh Janghu vs. CPC, Vyona Logistics (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, Paramjeet Singh vs. DCIT, CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Chintoo Creatios Vs. DCIT, A.P. Warehousing Corporation Vs. DCIT, Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Vs. CIT, Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda, PCIT vs. Strides Arcolab Ltd.
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, 1961
360 Brand Audit (30 mins)
₹299
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
CRM Implementation Plan
₹0
Startup Dissolution Resolution
₹0
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key GST Reforms that will Reshape Compliance and Cash Flows
Team Counselvise - February 03, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026