Cemetile Industries & Connected PF/ESIC Appeals v. ITO/DCIT
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Disallowance of PF ESIC vide 143(1) intimation is correct: ITAT-Pune
Result: Dismissed. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: Disallowance of PF ESIC vide 143(1) intimation is correct: ITAT-Pune
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Disallowance of PF ESIC vide 143(1) intimation is correct: ITAT-Pune
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
ITA No.693/PUN/2022 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 CEMETILE INDUSTRIES Vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), 61, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Pune Hadapsar, Pune – 411013 PAN : AAAFC8438L Appellant Respondent
ITA No.702/PUN/2022 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ITCUBE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. Vs. DCIT, Circle 7th Floor, 701/702/703, Godrej 1(1), Pune Castlemaine, Near Ruby Hall, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411001 PAN : AABCI1951J Appellant Respondent
ITA No.523/PUN/2022 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 EXFO ELECTRO-OPTICAL Vs. DCIT, Circle ENGINEERING (I) PVT. LTD. 1(1), Pune 604, 6th Floor, Tower S4, Cybercity, Magarpatta, Pune – 411013 PAN : AABCE6929J Appellant Respondent
ITA No.451/PUN/2022 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 R R Kapoor Company Vs. ADIT, CPC, 11, Prerana Arcade, Opp. Tarakpur Bengaluru Bus Stand, Ahmednagar – 414001 PAN : AAEFR9509B Appellant Respondent
ITA No.456/PUN/2022 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Suhail Masood Shaik Vs. DCIT, CPC, 6 AI Ameen CHS, Gultekadi, Bengaluru Pune-411037 PAN : ADFPS7985L Appellant Respondent
Appellant / assessee submissions
disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no
11. The ld. AR vehemently argued that it was a case of “increase
wages are payable. It was contended that salary for the month of
submitted that the information in audit report in point 20(b) was
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
3. We have heard Sh. Pramod Singte, Ms. Deepa Khare,
the year under consideration. In our considered opinion, the
Operative decision and relief
The result is recorded as Dismissed. The exact relief and qualifications are controlled by the final operative paragraphs of the packaged judgment.
Official source and later-history control
Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING
Later-history status: RECTIFICATION_HIGH_COURT_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING
ITAT rectification, jurisdictional High Court appeal and Supreme Court SLP history remain to be closed.
Release decision: Published with a sanitized local judgment copy and explicit source disclosure; official-primary retrieval and later-history surveillance remain open. Checked 2026-08-11; page is published as index,follow with these limitations disclosed.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses Disallowance of PF ESIC vide 143(1) intimation is correct: ITAT-Pune. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with disallowance of pf esic vide 143(1) intimation is correct: itat-pune Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending |
| Repository release | PUBLISH_READY |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Cemetile Industries & Connected PF/ESIC Appeals v. ITO/DCIT?
Disallowance of PF ESIC vide 143(1) intimation is correct: ITAT-Pune
Which facts matter most?
ITA No.693/PUN/2022 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 CEMETILE INDUSTRIES Vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), 61, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Pune Hadapsar, Pune – 411013 PAN : AAAFC8438L Appellant Respondent
What did the ITAT Pune decide?
Dismissed
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses Disallowance of PF ESIC vide 143(1) intimation is correct: ITAT-Pune. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
Disallowance of PF ESIC vide 143(1) intimation is correct: ITAT-Pune
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - Disallowance of PF ESIC vide 143(1) intimation is correct: ITAT-Pune - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- Disallowance of PF ESIC vide 143(1) intimation is correct: ITAT-Pune - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- PCIT v. Ashwin Purshotam Bajaj - Court / Tribunal to be verified
- PCIT v. N.S. Software - Court / Tribunal to be verified
- The Nakodar Primary Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer, Nakodar - ITAT Amritsar
Different outcome / possible distinction
- Shakti Singh Gulia vs ITO - Partly allowed
- Dy. CIT v. Curosis Healthcare Private Limited - Operative order controls
Related Finin2min resources
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.