411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.

363 ITR 307High Court2014#926 most cited

What is 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. authority for?

Employees' contribution to provident fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) deposited by the employer on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1) cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.

115

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. · 363 ITR 307 · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · employees contribution provident fund · ESI payments · due date return of income · Section 139(1) · disallowance employee contributions · deposit before return due date · State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

Also reported as

49 Taxmann.com 540228 Taxmann 214

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80P(2)(a)(iv)Section 80P(2)(d)

Issues it is cited on

section 3(b)employees contribution to pfsection 143(1)(a)(iv)section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(iv)section 2(24)section 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 36(1)section 43section 36section 10aa

Judgments citing 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.

Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Ltd., Varanasi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 29/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VARANASI CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRIVIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-assessment Centre, Bank Limited v. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. PAN:AABCU9355J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 07.07. 2022 Date of pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by asse…

Lawkush Sharma, Sonebhadra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (5), Sonebhadra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 23/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K.R.Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VARANASI CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRIVIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, v. Tax (CPC), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 PAN:ARTPS9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. K.R.Tiwari, Advocate Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 07.07. 2022 Date of pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee with In…

M/S Rugs Mart, Varanasi vs. DCIT, Circle - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

ITA 21/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.N.Jaiswal,AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VARANASI CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRIVIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner of Barhi Ewada v. Income Tax (CPC), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The DCIT , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) PAN:AALFR4883R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. R.K.N.Jaiswal,Advocate Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 07.07. 2022 Date of pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed b…

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle -6, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Deposit As Mentioned In Relevant Act Despite The Fact The Amount Was Deposited In Relevant Fund Before Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return Under Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mudit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘B’ JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 37/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar ACIT/DCIT Mills Limited Vs. Circle-06, Jaipur 4th Floor Nehru Sehkar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACR 8906 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Mudit…

Gosil Exports Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle -I, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Return.’’

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR MEETHA LAL MEENA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 163 /JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-119 cuke M/s. Gosil Exports Pvt. Ltd. DCIT E-70, Sitapura Industrial Area Vs. Circle-1 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACG8920 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S.L. Gupta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri N.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT…

Axis Carriers & Logisticas Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 159/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh K. MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…e the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue". Against which the revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) [85 taxmann.com 185].Therefore, taking the consistent view and r…

Assort Staffing Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst Dir of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue". Against which the revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) [85 taxmann.com 185].Therefore, taking the consistent view and r…

M/S. Almech Facades Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC`, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2087/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…e the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue". Against which the revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) [85 taxmann.com 185].Therefore, taking the consistent view and r…

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2056/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…e the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 8 ITA.NOs. 2056 & 2058/MUM/2021 (A.Y:2018-19 & 2019-20) M/s. P.A Zaveri taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue". Against which the revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court i…

Vinayak Hirji Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2012/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(Va)Section 36(1)(va)

…e the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue". Against which the revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) [85 taxmann.com 185].Therefore, taking the consistent view and r…

M/S. Aashia Products, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2007/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue". Against which the revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) [85 taxmann.com 185].Therefore, taking the consistent view and r…

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1986/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…e the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue". Against which the revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) [85 taxmann.com 185].Therefore, taking the consistent view and r…

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst/Dy/ Dir of Income Tax CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…e the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue". Against which the revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) [85 taxmann.com 185].Therefore, taking the consistent view and r…

Paper Recycle, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1960/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri R.D. KhonaFor Respondent: Smt Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…e the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue". Against which the revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) [85 taxmann.com 185].Therefore, taking the consistent view and r…

Raman & Weil Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1946/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Surendra NijsureFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…nsideration judgment of this Court 8 ITA.NO. 1946/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2017-18) M/s. Raman & Weil Pvt. Ltd., in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue". Against which the revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) [85 taxmann.com 185]. Therefore, taking the consistent view and…

Dolcas Botanosys Pvt. Ltd. Bikaner, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore/ACIT, C-1 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 50/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 cuke M/s. Dolcas Botanosys Private Ltd. The ADIT, CPC Rani Bazar Vs. BENGALURU/ ACIT Circle-1, Jaipur Bikaner LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAECM 1703 E` vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Amit Kothari, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Reven…

Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, Sonebhadra vs. Dy. CIT, (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI. RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, v. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. CPC Bangalore PAN- AFVPM5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 09.05.2022 Date of pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.08.2021 of…

Bloom Systems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2348/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue". Against which the 9 ITA.NOs. 2348, 2393 & 2394/MUM/2021 & other appeals M/s. Bloom Systems Pvt. Ltd., revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble A…

Lalit Kumar Chabra, Kota vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 72/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 154

…ng matters as on date. On these arguments, it is held that the late payment of PF, ESI etc are not covered by Sec 43B of the Act. 5.5 The Appellant has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. JWNL & RRVUNL (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj.) in his favor. These decisions are not applicable in the present case of the appellant in view of the subsequent clarifications and explanations brought in the Finance Act by the Parliament in this regard by inserting explanations to 36(1)(va) and 43B (cited supra). 6. Admittedly in the present appeal, the facts indicate that the sum of Rs.…

Lalit Kumar Chabra, Kota vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 71/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 154

…ng matters as on date. On these arguments, it is held that the late payment of PF, ESI etc are not covered by Sec 43B of the Act. 5.5 The Appellant has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. JWNL & RRVUNL (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj.) in his favor. These decisions are not applicable in the present case of the appellant in view of the subsequent clarifications and explanations brought in the Finance Act by the Parliament in this regard by inserting explanations to 36(1)(va) and 43B (cited supra). 6. Admittedly in the present appeal, the facts indicate that the sum of Rs.…