Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 36(1)(va), Section 43B, Section 80P(2)(a)(iv), Section 80P(2)(d).

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

Q: How many judgments cite 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.?

115 judgments on BharatTax cite 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (363 ITR 307), spanning 2015 to 2025.

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 43B Section 80P(2)(a)(iv)Section 80P(2)(d)

Issues it is cited on

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

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

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 25/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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 24/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

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)

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru/ DCIT, Cr.1 Jaipur, Bengaluru, Karnataka

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

ITA 18/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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)

Pragati Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycti (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepragati Fashions P Ltd., Vs. Dycti (Cpc) F.P.No. 455, Shree 1 St Floor, Prestige Sadguru Heights, Alpha, Bhavani Shankar Road, Beratenagrahara, Dadar (W) Hosur Road, Uttahalli Mumbai-400028. Hobli,Bangalore- 560100 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp1730H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.Counsel Respondent By : Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Pragati Fashions P Ltd, Mumbai. 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…

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

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

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor 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, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.15/Alld./2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s. Commercial Auto Sales Assistant Director of Income Private Limited v. Tax(CPC), Centralized 4-C, Maharishi Dayanand Marg Processing Center , Allahabad, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (Jurisdictional A0: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Allahabad, U.P.) PAN:AABCC3962F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CA Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 23.12. 2021 Date of pronouncement…

Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt.Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT, CPC/ DCIT Circle -6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Filing Of Return Of Income.” 3. The Ld. Ar Inviting Attention To The Impugned Order

For Appellant: Shri Akshun Gupta,CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 43B

…2014) 366 ITR 408 (Kar); Peerless General Finance & (Calcutta High Court); Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom); AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Rajasthan); TA TE Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan); Lakhani Rubber Udyog (2009) 312 ITR 0014 (154 order) ( Punjab & Haryana), Bihar State Warehousing Corporation ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 386 (Patna); Sagun Foundry Private Limited (2017) 145 DTR 265 (All) and George Williamson (Assam) Limited (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati). Howeve r…

Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Addl. CIT Range 6(3)

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2004[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj &

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…notice various decisions which are in favour of the assesse viz., AIMIL Ltd., [321 ITR 508 (Del.)], Fluid Air (India) Ltd., [63 ITD 182 (Mum)], Vinay Cement, [ 213 ITR 268 (SC)], Bharati Shipyard [11 ITR (Tri) 599 (Mum)(SB)], CIT v. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Ltd [363 ITR 307 (Raj HC)] and CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports 47 ITA No. 4753 & 5584/MUM/2004 (A.Y. 2002-03) Grasim Industries Limited, Ltd., [368 ITR 749 (Bom)] and requested the same be adopted in the case of assessee also. 78. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record the coordinate bench has already considered this…

Karam Vir Yadav, Alwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

ITA 96/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 96/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Vir Yadav Cuke Cit(A), Vs. M/S Shashank Engg. Works, Nfac. 191, M.I.A., Alwar-301001. Pan No.: Aabpy 1852 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri J.P. Garg (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 28/06/2021 For The A.Y. 2019-20. Following Ground Has Been Taken By The Assessee: “ On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Returned Income While Processing Of Income Tax Return, U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act Amounting Rs. 1,14,148/- For Delay In Deposit Of Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi On Due Date Of The Respective Act Which Is Unjustified & Unlawful As It Was Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing It Return U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. This Was Also Allowed By Hon’Ble Itat, Jaipur & Hon’Ble High Court Of Rajasthan, Hon’Ble Itat Of 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Garg (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…er respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 18. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak 8 ITA 96/JP/2021_ Karam Vir Yadav vs. ACIT(A) NFAC Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corportation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date u…

Shashi Rajawat, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 81/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 81/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shashi Rajawat, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 58, Ambabari Shopping Centre, Ward 4(2), Ambabari, Jaipur-302023. Jaipur Pan No.: Abupr 2195 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Rathore (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23/07/2021 For The A.Y. 2018-19. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Disallowing The Pf & Esi Payments Amounting To Rs. 97,290/- Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return During The Year. 2. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts. 3. That The Petitioner Craves To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Due Date.”

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Rathore (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…er respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 18. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages 8 ITA 81/JP/2021_ Shashi Rajawat Vs ITO Corportation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the re…

M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 76/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 76/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. 602, Elements Mall, Dcm, Ajmer Cpc, Road, Jaipur. Bengaluru. Pan No.: Aabfb 3002 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 29/06/2021 For The A.Y. 2018-19. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 12,50,413/- U/S 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf & Esi. She Has Further Erred In Making The Addition By Not Following The Decision Of Jurisdictional High Court. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…er respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 18. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages 8 ITA 76/JP/2021_ M/s Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat Vs DCIT Corporation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due da…

Dhabriya Polywood Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT-C-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Nehra (JCIT) a

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…the return of income under Section 8 Dhabriya Polywood Limited vs. ADIT 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 18. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corportation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the…

Satish Kumar Sinha, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward -4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 293/HYD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Aug 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. C.S.Sree LekhaFor Respondent: Sri Waseem-ur-Rehman,DR

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…

K.P. Airtech, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…efore filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT 18. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corportation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the…

K.P. Airtech, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

Sohan Lal Tambi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…r respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 14. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corportation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT), BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 147 & 148/ALLD/2016 Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2007-08 JCIT (OSD), Circle-2 Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, 38, M.G. v. Naini, Allahabad, U.P. Marg, Allahabad,U.P. PAN: AAACB9309A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR) Assessee by: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.A. Date of hearing: 14.07.2021 Date of pronouncement: 12.08.2021 O R D E R PER Bench: These two appeals, filed by Revenue, bearing I…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

U and T Tractor Spares Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 43/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Aug 2021AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Raksha Birla (C.A.) & Shri Mohit Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Kajal Singh (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…t made on or before due date of filing of return of income, no disallowances can be made. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions:-  CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70  CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307  CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 163 7. It was submitted that in the latest decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. / Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill (2017) 250 Taxman 32 (Raj), the Hon'ble High Court has once again held that the employees' contribution…

Anjali Devi Majeti, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(3), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 95/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Tarak NathFor Respondent: Sri Rajat Mishra, DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Soni Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: None (written submission)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jt. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (d) CIT Vs. M/s Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) (e) CIT Vs Vinay Cement Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd 363 ITR 307 (Raj) (g) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) (h) CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) In view of above, your honours are therefore humbly requested to please delete the addition. Ground No. 2- Disallowance of Rs.150279/- sustained being expenses relating to earlier years. Facts and Submissio…