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

Q: How many judgments cite 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd.?

13 judgments on BharatTax cite 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (98 DTR 109), spanning 2017 to 2023.

98 DTR 109High Court2013#8573 most cited

What is 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. authority for?

The employer's contribution to employees' provident fund paid after the due date is not eligible for deduction if paid after the due date for filing the return of income.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT vs Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. · section 36(1)(va) · section 43B · employee contribution to PF · deduction · due date

Issues it is cited on

section 56(i)(ccv)section 3(b)section 143(1)(a)(iv)section 80(p)section 80(p)(2)section 36(va)section 80(p)(2)(d)section 43b(b)section 194a(3)(v)section 194a(3)section 36(1)(iv)employees contribution to pf

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

Om Prakash, Jodhpur vs. Ld. AO Ward 3(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1713/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Om Prakash Near Mobile World Ratanada Defence Lab Road Jodhpur-342 001 Rajasthan Pan: Acpp0758B ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 254(2)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Om Prakash Near Mobile World Ratanada Defence Lab Road Jodhpur-342 001 Rajasthan PAN: ACPP0758B ...... Appellant Vs. AO Ward 3(4) Kalyan ..... Respondent Assessee by : None Respondent by : Ms. Kakoli Ghosh Date of hearing : 31/07/2023 Date of pronouncement : 28/09/2023 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short “NFAC”) dated 17.03.2023 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in…

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

ITA 101/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…(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

ITA 133/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: None (E written submission)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 5

…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

ITA 94/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. RuniPal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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

ITA 350/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…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

ITA 349/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 200/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

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

ITA 356/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

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.”

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Baig (JCIT)

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

…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

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

ITA 160/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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

ITA 977/JPR/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2018AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

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

…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

ITA 972/JPR/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2018AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

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

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 122/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Prakash Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…