98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd.

CHANDRA SHEKHAR TIWARI,FLAT NO. B-9, D-224, TANWAR RESIDENCY, TULSI MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…(2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) 4. CIT vs SBBJ (2014) 99 DTR 131(Raj) 5. CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC) 4 Chandra Shekhar Tiwari vs ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur 6. CIT vs JVNNL 98 DTR 105 (Raj) 7. CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Udaipur, 98 DTR 109 (Raj) 8. CIT Vs Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 268 (SC) 9. Mahadev Cold Storage vs Jurisdictional AO (ITA No. 41 & 42/Agr/2021 dated 14-06-2021 10. Pr. CIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi Bench order dated 10-09-2018 in ITA No. 983/2018) 11. DCIT vs Dee Development Engineers Ltd. (ITAT Delhi Bench order in ITA No. 4959/De…

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…O,WARD 2(3), KOTA (ii) the said amount has been paid before due date of filing of return and thus cannot be added to income in view of decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. SBBJ 99 DTR 131 and CIT vs. Jaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 98 DTR 109 and Honble ITAT Jaipur in case of Nigam Jewels Pvt Ltd. vs. ADIT/DCIT ITA. No. 356/JP/2022 2. That ld. CIT(A) has wrongly interpreted that by late deposit of employee contribution, the employers get unjustly enriched by keeping the money belonging to the employees. He has ignored that assessee also deposit interest and penalty according to welfare…

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…sthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 250 Taxman 16 (SC) CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 99 DTR 131 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.) (HC) 3 M/S. READY ROTI INDIA PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 1. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which provides that the definition of due dates as per section 43B is deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of employees contribution is applicable from…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 250 Taxman 16 (SC) CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 99 DTR 131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which provides that the definition of due dates as per section 43B is deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of employees contribution is applicable from 01.04.2021, i.e. AY 2021-22 and thus, not applicable for the y…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 250 Taxman 16 (SC) CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 99 DTR 131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which provides that the definition of due dates as per section 43B is deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of employees contribution is applicable from 01.04.2021, i.e. AY 2021-22 and thus, not applicable for the y…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 250 Taxman 16 (SC) CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 99 DTR 131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which provides that the definition of due dates as per section 43B is deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of employees contribution is applicable from 01.04.2021, i.e. AY 2021-22 and thus, not applicable for the y…

M/S NIGAM JEWELS PVT. LTD.,H-45, SEZ 1, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

…ion 143(1)(a)(iv) (ii) the said amount has been paid before due date of filing of return and thus cannot be added to income in view of decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CITvs. SBBJ 99 DTR 131 and CIT vs. Jaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 98 DTR 109.” 3.1 The ld. AR placed before us the additional ground challenging the adjustment u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and since this legal ground, the ld. DR did not objected to this legal ground and therefore we are admitting the additional ground for adjudication. 4. The brief fact of the case are that the assessee filed the return along with tax audit…

M/S OASIS LABORATORIES PVT. LTD.,SP-2, 22 GODAM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU/ ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘SMC’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 160/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18 cuke M/s Oasis Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. CPC, Bangalore/ Vs. SP-2, 22 Godam Industrial Estate, ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACO 1643 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA) jktLo…

NICE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,1-A,KESHEV NAGAR, CIVIL LINES,JAIPUR,RAJASTHAN,INDIA,302019 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…the assessee relied on following case laws:- 1. CIT vs Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR 62 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Alom Extrusion Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC) 3. CIT Vs SBBJ(2014) 99 DTR 131 (Raj-HC) 4. CIT vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.-HC) 5. ACIT vs Om Metals & Minerals (P) Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur Bench) (2009) XLII TW 51 6. CIT Vs Rajasthan State Beverage Corporation Ltd. (2017) 250 Taxman 0016 (SC) Thus the ld. AR of the assssee prayed that in view of the above settled legal position, the disallowance so made by the authorities below may kindly be deleted. 4.6 On the other h…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

…ourse of appellate proceedings, the assessee relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131, CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut vitran Nigam Ltd. 98 DTR 105 and CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahari Sangh Ltd. 98 DTR 109 and submitted that the assessee has deposited the entire CPF, GPF, EPF and ESI before the due date of filing of the return of income. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has deposited the contribution towards CPF, GPF, EPF and ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the decisions o…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

…ourse of appellate proceedings, the assessee relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131, CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut vitran Nigam Ltd. 98 DTR 105 and CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahari Sangh Ltd. 98 DTR 109 and submitted that the assessee has deposited the entire CPF, GPF, EPF and ESI before the due date of filing of the return of income. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has deposited the contribution towards CPF, GPF, EPF and ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the decisions o…

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…his contention, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following case laws :- CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) DTR 131 (Raj.HC) CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., 98 DTR 105 (Raj.HC) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak SahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.HC). The ld. Counsel, therefore, prayed that the order of ld. CIT (A) be affirmed. 2.1. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the order of the Assessing Officer. M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & M/s. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. 2.2. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone t…