PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR-II vs. M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/240/2018HC RajasthanRJHC02068826201807 August 2019Bench: MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for both parties agreed that the questions in these appeals pertain to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI. They further agreed that these issues had already been decided against the Revenue by the High Court itself in the case of 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 (C) No. 016249/2014 against the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court, and the correctness of the High Court's judgment was to be tested by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in view of the pending SLP, the appeals were disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court on the aforesaid question. No specific finding was given on the merits of the individual appeals, and the operative direction was to dispose of the appeals subject to the Supreme Court's decision.

What were the facts?

These are a batch of 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 Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The appeals challenge orders from the Assessment Year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be prior to 2019. The core dispute revolves around the deductibility of contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI. The parties agree that the issue has been decided against the Revenue by the Rajasthan High Court in CIT 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 judgment, and its outcome is pending. The present appeals are therefore proposed to be disposed of subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the contributions made by the assessee towards Provident Fund and ESI are deductible in terms of Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the same are paid after the due date but before the due date of filing the return of income? Assessee's Contention: The assessee contends that the issue has been decided in their favor by the Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.), which held such contributions to be deductible. The assessee relies on this High Court judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledges the Rajasthan High Court's decision against it but states that it has filed an SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the correctness of that judgment. The Revenue submits that the present appeals should be disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43-B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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 43-B

All 55 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43-B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →