C.I.T.UDAIPUR vs. M/S UDAIPUR DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/36/2013HC RajasthanRJHC01019847201313 May 2013Bench: ARUN BHANSALI,NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the ITAT's order dated 06.11.2012, which deleted the addition made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), was based on the ITAT's earlier order dated 16.12.2011. The High Court had previously dismissed appeals (ITA Nos.48/2012 and 50/2012) arising from the ITAT's order dated 16.12.2011 on 13.05.2013. Since the present appeal was based on the same grounds, the High Court applied the same reasoning and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, with no costs awarded. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, challenging an order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The ITAT's order pertains to the assessment year 2008-09 and concerns the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had relied on its previous order dated 16.12.2011 in similar appeals for the same assessee. The High Court noted that appeals arising from the ITAT's order dated 16.12.2011 had already been dismissed by the High Court on 13.05.2013. Therefore, the present appeal, based on identical grounds, was also dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning employee contributions to provident fund and other funds. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision, which was upheld, implies that the assessee likely argued that the addition was not warranted. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the addition made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) was justified. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court was based on the grounds that the ITAT had incorrectly deleted this addition, relying on its prior order. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the High Court for reasons contained in its earlier order dated 13.05.2013, which dealt with identical grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.36/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur Vs. M/s. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Udaipur. Date of Judgment ::

13th May, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant. ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('ITAT') in ITA No.70/JU./2012 for the assessment year 2008-09, whereby, the ITAT while dealing with the issue relating to deletion of the addition made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') has relied on its earlier order dated 16.12.2011 passed in ITA Nos.351 and 352/JU/2010 pertaining to the same assessee and has consequently dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. The ITA Nos.48/2012 and 50/2012, arising out of the said order dated 16.12.2011 have been dismissed by this Court by order dated 13.05.2013, the present appeal, which is based on the self same grounds, is also dismissed for the reasons as contained in the above order dated 13.05.2013. No costs. (ARUN BHANSALI),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. A.K. Chouhan

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →