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.

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1287/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1287/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2016-17 D.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Vs. Circle-6, Limited, Jaipur. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj 6373 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Verma (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : P.C. Parwal (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 03/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 6,88,83,063/- Made For Depositing The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Beyond The Prescribed Time Limited Provided In The Respective Acts. 2. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Holding That The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Are Governed By The Provisions Of Section 43B & Not By Section 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.”

For Appellant: P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Verma (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 as well as decision in case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 and in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163. We further note that the Id. CIT(A) though has not disputed the various decisions of Hon'ble High Court however, disallowance made by the AO are sustained as he misunderstood the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. M/s Rajasthan Renewable E…

Elico Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1120/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, 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]. :- 5 -: Therefore, taking the consistent…

M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the ground is partly allowed

ITA 1094/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: The Roi Filling & Is Allowable As Held By Various Courts. The Disallowance So Made & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A), Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts & Hence Kindly Be Deleted In Full.”

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (ITP)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 139

…s-integra in as much as the same is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. SBBJ (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj) and CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 2 M/s Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj). It was accordingly submitted that the disallowance so made may kindly be deleted. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that on examination of books of accounts, the Assessing Officer observed that the expenses were not supported by proper bills, some of the expenses were claimed with handmade slips/bills and some of the payments were made…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु#वु$ आर.एल. रे&डी, "या)यक सद"य के सम* BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L.REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER )नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING v. M/s.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [PAN: AAICS 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, CA : Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT /…

M/S Dreamax Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 145(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jes’k lh0 ’kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 160 & 161/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 cuke M/s. Dreamax Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT Vs. Circle-6 22, Satya Vihar, Lalkothi,Near Vidhansabha, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAECD 2360 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA jktLo dh…

M/S, Forte Foliage Pvt. Ltd, 217, Laxmi Complex, M.I. Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 617/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: The End Of The Financial Year Itself & Therefore, The Payment Was Made Much Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 37(1)

…e is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 as well as decision in case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 and in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) though has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble High Court however, disallowance made by the AO are sustained as he misunderstood the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. M/s Rajasthan Renewable E…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2885/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner M/s. Repco Home Finance v. Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, 33, North Usman Road, Corporate Circle-5(1), T.Nagar, Chennai-600034 Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAACR 0209 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri ARV Sreenivasan, अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/…

Accme (Urvashi Pumps) Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 316/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 316/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke M/S. Accme (Urvashi Pumps) Engineers (P) Ltd. The Ito Vs. A-407, A/A Road No. 14 Vki Area, Ward- 4(2) Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aabca 5655 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respo Ndent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rohan Sogani, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 27 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 24-01-2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 1,53,053/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…was misunderstood by the ld. CIT(A). We note that there was typographical mistake in the said decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court whereas the Hon’ble High Court has followed the earlier decision in case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307. The ld. AR has pointed out that the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 250 taxmann 32 has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 250 taxmann 16. Thus, the issue is covered by a series of decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court including the decision in…

M/S M.P.Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 273/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. M.P. Rajya Van Vikas Pr. Cit-1 Nigam Ltd. Bhopal बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Panchanan Building Vs. T.T. Nagar Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaccm0331R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Hon'ble Supreme 319 ITR 306, judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70 and also judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam 363 ITR 307 it is contended that the special leave petitions filed by the revenue against these judgements have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is contended that the Ld. Pr. [ITA No.273/Ind/2018] [M/s. M.P. Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd., Bhopal] CIT was not justified in revising the order on this Ground. We find merit into the c…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Jk International, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

ITA 716/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar,, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10ASection 115BSection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

…TR 70 (Raj) (HC) :-Where PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF, etc., was paid after the due date under the respective acts but before filing of return of income u/s 139(1), it could not be disallowed u/s 43B or u/s 36(1)(va). CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj.) (HC):- The assessee claimed payment of GPF, CPF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the IT Act on the ground that the same was deposited on or before the due date of furnishing the IT return u/s 139. The AO disallowed the payment on the ground that though the amount was paid by the assessee, but was not paid within the due date as given un…

Uttam Bharat Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) and Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Jai Singh (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 710/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15. cuke Uttam Bharat Electricals Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, Vs. B-189A, Road No. 9, VKI Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAACU 2962 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) and Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) jktLo dh v…

M/S Jaipur Stock Securities Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 992/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)

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

Sanghvi Diamond Mfg. Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is set aside for statistical purpose

ITA 168/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Sanghvi Diamonds Mfg. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 103 To 113, Sanghvi Building, Op. Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. Prannat Hospital, Ved Road, Surat. [Pan: Aadcs 4321 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Sanghvi Diamonds Mfg. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 103 To 113, Sanghvi Building, Op. Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. Prannat Hospital, Ved Road, Surat. [Pan: Aadcs 4321 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 014Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…under: “Karnataka High Court: February 4, 2014 [2014] 366 ITR 408 (Kar) M/s. Essae Teraoka Pvt ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Karnataka High Court: [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karn) : July 3, 2007 CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises Rajasthan High Court : [2014] 363 ITR 307 :January 6, 2014 CIT, Jaipur-II, Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nighm Ltd. Rajasthan High Court :[2014] 366 ITR 163 : May 13, 2013 CIT, Udaipur Vs. M/s.Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Udaipur Rajasthan High Court [2014] 363 ITR 70 : January 6, 2014 CIT VS. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner & Ja…

Om Metals Auto Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1315/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Maheshwari (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)

…e is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 as well as decision in case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 and in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163. 8. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) though has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble High Court however, disallowance made by the AO are sustained as he misunderstood the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. M/s Rajasthan Renewabl…

M/S Gosil Exports P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1064/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date Of Submission Of Return U/S 139(1).” 2 Gosil Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Shambhu Lal Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Anuradha (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…e is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 as well as decision in case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 and in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163. 4. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) though has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble High Court however, disallowance made by the AO are sustained as he misunderstood the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. M/s Rajasthan Renewabl…

Rajasthan Cottage Industries, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 983/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Due Date

For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)

Section 139(1)

…misunderstood by the ld. CIT(A). We note that there was typographical mistake in the said decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court whereas the Hon’ble High Court has followed the earlier decision in case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307. The ld. AR has pointed out that the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 250 taxmann 32 has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 250 2 Rajasthan Cottage Industries vs. ITO taxmann 16. Thus, the issue is covered by a series of decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdi…

Herrenknecht India P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

…Nuchem Ltd. [(2015) 59 taxmann.com 455 (Punjab & Haryana)] vi. Essae Tera Oka (P) Ltd .. v. DCIT [(2014) 366 ITR 408 (Kam.)(HC)] vii. CIT v. Hernia Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [(2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H)(HC)] viii. CIT v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. [(2014) 363 ITR 307 (Rajasthan)] ix. CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [(2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) (HC)] x. CIT v. Mark Auto Industries Ltd. [(2014) 358 ITR 43 (P&H)] xi. CIT v. Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd[(2014) 266 CTR 241 (KRN.)(HC)] xii. CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd.[ (2014) 43 taxmann.com 396 (Cal.)(HC)] xiii. CIT v. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. [(2013) 356 ITR 351…

M/S K.S. Cars Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1182/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala (JCIT)

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

…essee deposited the employees' contribution towards PF/ESI before the due date of filing of return. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in various cases i.e., CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131, CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 366 ITR 163, PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd., and CIT vs. M/s Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd.,(2017) 393 ITR 0421 has held that where the employees contribution to PF/ESI is deposited before due date of filing of return, the same cannot be disallowed u/s 36(…

M/S. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 817/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 251Section 36(1)Section 43BSection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 772/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-2014 cuke The DCIT, M/s Rajasthan Renewable Energy Vs. Circle-6, Corporation Ltd., Jaipur. E-166, Yudhister Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACL 3171 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 817/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 c…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited, Jaipur

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

ITA 772/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 251Section 36(1)Section 43BSection 80I