M/S A R Transport, Satna vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Ward 2 Satna.Central Processing Centre, Bangalore, Karnaataka
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed
ITA 7/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20
Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 A R Transport, Assistant Director Of Income Vs. Tax, Central Processing Satna, (M.P.) Centre, Bangalore [Pan : Aayfa 6634L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Written Submissions Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/04/2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B
…in the matter is that the issue at hand is, in view of the several decisions to the contrary, debatable, and therefore could not have been made under section 143(1), even as clarified by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Shikarchand Jain [2003] 263 ITR 221 (MP); CIT v. GEI Engineering Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 112 (MP), as indeed by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra). The Tribunals’ decision in Nikhil Mohine 3.2 The Revenue has, invoking section 2(24)(x) r/w s. 36(1)(va), added the Employees’ contribution to the Employee Provident Fund to the assessee’s returned income u/s. 143(1) as the same stood de…