PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD.

ITA/275/2018HC RajasthanRJHC02088227201807 August 2019Author: MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the parties are in agreement that the questions raised in these appeals pertain to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI. It was further acknowledged that this issue had been decided against the Revenue by the same Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, the Revenue had preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court against this judgment. Consequently, the Court agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the parties that these appeals should be disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP. No specific finding on the merits of the Section 43B interpretation was given in this judgment, as it was deferred pending the Supreme Court's decision.

What were the facts?

These are multiple Income Tax Appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, against various Rajasthan state electricity companies, including Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., and Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. The appeals challenge orders for assessment years not explicitly stated in the provided text. The core of the dispute revolves around the deductibility of contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI. The parties agree that this issue has been previously decided by the Rajasthan High Court in favor of the assessee in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, the Revenue has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging this High Court judgment. The present appeals are therefore being disposed of subject to the outcome of the pending SLP.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the contributions made by the assessee towards Provident Fund and ESI are deductible in computing the income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly in light of Section 43B. The Assessee's contention is that the issue has already been decided in their favor by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). The Revenue's contention, as implied by their filing of an SLP before the Supreme Court, is that the correctness of the Rajasthan High Court's judgment is under challenge and awaits the Supreme Court's decision. They seek to have these appeals disposed of in accordance with the final judgment of the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 239/2018 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur-Ii, Ncr Building Statue Circle C-Scheme Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd, Vidyut Bhawan Jaipur ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 232/2018 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 233/2018 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 240/2018 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur-Ii, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd, Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 243/2018 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur (2 of 4) [ITA-239/2018] ----Appellant Versus M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd, Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 247/2018 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur-Ii, Ncr Building Statue Circle C-Scheme Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prsaran Nigam Ltd, Vidyut Bhawan Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 249/2018 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 250/2018 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur - Ii Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd, Vidyut Bhawan Janpath Marg Jyoti Nagar Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 275/2018 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 276/2018 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur Ncr Building Statue Circle C-Scheme Jaipur (3 of 4) [ITA-239/2018] ----Appellant Versus M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 284/2018 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus M/s Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur. Pan- Aabcj6373K ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Jain with Mr. Arjun Singh. Mr. Prateek Kedawat on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Saxena on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar Mr. L.L. Gupta. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment 07/08/2019 Learned counsel for the parties are at idom that the questions that are proposed in these appeals pertain to contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI and the said issues have already been decided against the Revenue by this Court vide judgment dated 06.01.2014 passed in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, the Revenue has preferred SLP (C) No. 016249/2014 against the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court. Learned counsel submit that although this Court has answered the question with respect to interpretation of Section (4 of 4) [ITA-239/2018] 43-B of the Income Tax Act against the Revenue but correctness of that judgment is to be tested by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid pending SLP. Therefore, these appeals may be disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court on the aforesaid question in pending SLP. In view of above, all the aforesaid appeals are disposed of accordingly. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of each connected appeal. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J MANOJ NARWANI /29 to 34, 36 to 40.

More judgments on Section 43B

Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai
ITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai
ITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, Gurgaon
ITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, Mumbai
ITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →