BHARGAVI HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 419/JPR/2022Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 January 2023AY 2020-21Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)8 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax auditor's reporting in Form 3CD was inadvertently incorrect, and most contributions were deposited before the due dates. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of the deposit dates.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was processed under section 143(1) and an addition was made for employee's contribution to PF & ESI based on reporting in Form 3CD. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under section 143(1) for employee's contribution to PF & ESI, based on a reporting error in Form 3CD, is justified when deposits were made before the due dates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 419/JP/2022

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.A
Hearing: 03/01/2023Pronounced: 24/01/2023

Order pronounced in the open court on 24/01/2023.

Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (SANDEEP GOSAIN) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 24/01/2023. Das/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant-M/s. Bhargavi Hotels & Resorts P. Ltd., Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur. 2. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 4. 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 419/JP/2022} 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

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 →