DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 181/JPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 April 2018AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. It relied on the binding precedent of the Jurisdictional High Court in similar cases.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed the deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI made beyond the prescribed time limit, even though it was paid before the due date of filing the return of income. The assessee appealed this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether employees' contribution to PF & ESI, paid after the due date but before the return filing due date, is allowable as a deduction. Whether Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) governs such contributions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 181/JP/2018

Hearing: 04/04/2018

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM :

This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 21ST

November, 2017 of ld. CIT (A)-2, Jaipur for the assessment year 2014-15. The revenue has raised the following grounds :-

“ (i) Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,41,21,318/- made by the AO for depositing the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI beyond the prescribed time limit provided in respective Acts.

(ii) Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) was justified in holding that employees’ contribution to PF & ESI are governed by the provision of section 43B and not by section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act.

2 Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur.

(iii) The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.

2.

The only issue in this appeal is regarding disallowance made by the AO on account of depositing employees’ contribution of PF and ESI beyond the prescribed

limitation provided in the respective Acts, however, paid before the due date of filing

the return of income.

4.

We have heard the ld. D/R as well as the ld. A/R and carefully perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) as well as the decision in the assessee’s own above binding precedent of Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of ld. CIT (A).

5.

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 05/04/2018. (foØe flag ;kno) (fot; iky jkWo ½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Jaipur Dated:- 05/04/2018. Das/

3 Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur.

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- The DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur.

2.

The Respondent –M/s. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur.

3.

The CIT(A).

4.

The CIT,

5.

The DR, ITAT, Jaipur

6.

Guard File (ITA No. 181/JP/2018) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

4 Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur.

More judgments on Section 43B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →