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.

Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1958/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1958 & 1959/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2017-18 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Mr.R.D. Khona.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Love Kumar.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)

…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…

Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Astt. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore [DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai]

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1838/MUM/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhemkay Facilities Vs. Acit (Cpc), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [Dcit Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…of income and taking in consideration Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 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.W.S. & Co., Bhadohi vs. Dy. C.I.T., Range - 1, Varanasi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 25/VNS/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi19 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 And Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (CPC), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing PAN-AAFFM2003E Officer being Dy./Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 20.04.2022 Date of pronouncement:…

M.W.S. & Co., Bhadohi vs. Dy. C.I.T., Range - 1, Varanasi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 24/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi19 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 And Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (CPC), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing PAN-AAFFM2003E Officer being Dy./Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 20.04.2022 Date of pronouncement:…

Neeraj Purohit, Jaipur vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 81/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Apr 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…by the judgments of Hon’ble High Courts, which are produced as under:- “1. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) 2. Amil Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) 3. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Niga, Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307. 4. State Bank jof Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70. 5. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. (Calcutta H.C.) 6. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) 7. BS Patel (2010) 326 ITR 457 (M.P.) 8. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 386 (Patna H.C.) 9. Sagun Foundry Private Limited (2017) 145 DTR 0265 (All) 10. George…

Shiiv Veg Pro Private Limited, Kota vs. Central Processing Center, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of income u-s. 139(1), could not be disallowed u-s. 43B or u-s. 36(1)(va). Substantial question of law answered against revenue and in favour of assessee. Revenue's appeal dismissed." 2.5 Similarly in the case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) it was held that: "If the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return u- s 139 then the amount cannot be disallowed u-s 43B or u-s 36(1)(va) of the Act. In instant case the entire amount was deposited by the respondent-assessee at least on or before the due date of filing of the returns under Section 139 thus no…

M/S Ind Synergy Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 312/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 312/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ind Synergy Limited Gokul Puram, Kachna Road, Khamardih, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaaci7072D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Mahawar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shravankumar Meena, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shravankumar Meena, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

…Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) c. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.Vs. CIT 386 ITR 410 (Patna) d. Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) e. CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) g. EssaeTeraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) h. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) i. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as emplo…

Amit Singh, Bhiwadi (Alwar) vs. DCIT, CPC- Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,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. 284/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 DCIT, cuke Amit Singh M/s Amit Travels, A-13 Bhagat Singh Vs. CPC, Bangalore. Colony, Bhiwadi, Tizara, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: CAWPS 4777 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.) jktLo dh…

Transindia Nonwovens Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 267/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri B.P.Mundra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 24Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…c., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income u/s 139(1), cannot be disallowed u/s 438 or u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act • CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 • CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 • CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163 • Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax v/s Rajasthan state Seed Corporation Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj) • Income Tax vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj) • Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited in the ITAT Jaipur Bench “…

Suraj Kiran Fabrics, 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, 306401, Rajasthan vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 23(3)(6)

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1604/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesuraj Kiran Fabrics Vs. Jurisdictional Ao 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, Ward23(3)(6) Rajasthan-306401 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs1244A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Jodhpur, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 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 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…

High Tensile Fastnuts (India) P..Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1572/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale&, Shri Gagan Goyalhigh Tensile Fastnuts Vs. Dcit – Cpc (India) Pvt Ltd., Bangalore, 601, 6Th Floor, Karnataka-560100 Goldcrest Business Park, Opposite Shreyas Cinema, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai – 400086. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1190D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Mehul Shah.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul Shah.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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 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 Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari v. Exemption Ward, Allahabad Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., U.P. 211001 Khadia, Yogichaura, Shaktinagar, Sonbhadra-231222 PAN-AAATU1540K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 15.03.2022 Date of pronouncement: 16.03.2022 O R D E R VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.10.2021 of CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi fo…

Vaaho Agencies Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1 ( 1 ), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee related all grounds of ITA No

ITA 30/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenash. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) c. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.Vs. CIT 386 ITR 410 (Patna) d. Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) e. CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) g. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) h. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) i. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as…

Dushyant Kumar Tyagi, G1-1103 R.I.A vs. DCIT CPC Bengaluru, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 278/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rahis Mohammed, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 2Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 5

…3B of the I.T. Act, 1961, in view of binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the cases of CIT vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur reported in 2014, 363 ITR 70 Rajasthan, CIT vs Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited reported in 2014, 363 ITR 307 Rajasthan and CIT vs Udaipur Dughdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. reported in 2014 366 ITR 163 Rajasthan which may kindly be allowed. 3. That the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in holding that the amendments made in the Finance Act, 2021 are retrospective in nature. 4. That the ld. DCIT, CPC is not justified in disallowing d…

J.M.C Plywood, Goraya vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Phagwara

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 4/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) c. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.Vs. CIT 386 ITR 410 (Patna) d. Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) e. CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) g. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) h. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) i. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as…

M/S Diamond Red Tanneries, Kapurthala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 21/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) c. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.Vs. CIT 386 ITR 410 (Patna) d. Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) e. CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) g. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) h. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) i. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as…

Khalsa Bakery, Kaputhala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4 (2), Jalandhar

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 20/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) c. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.Vs. CIT 386 ITR 410 (Patna) d. Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) e. CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) g. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) h. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) i. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as…

Prahlad Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik?;{k ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 18/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Pratap Technocrats Private Limited ADIT, B-21, Shakti Bhawan, Sivaji Godara Colony, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru. Khatipura, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAICP 3621 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 33/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Y…

The Earth House Resorts LLP, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-2(3), Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 28/JPR/2022[2019-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik?;{k ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 18/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Pratap Technocrats Private Limited ADIT, B-21, Shakti Bhawan, Sivaji Godara Colony, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru. Khatipura, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAICP 3621 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 33/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Y…

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 26/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik?;{k ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 18/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Pratap Technocrats Private Limited ADIT, B-21, Shakti Bhawan, Sivaji Godara Colony, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru. Khatipura, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAICP 3621 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 33/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Y…