CIT v. Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank

388 ITR 228High Court2016#11956 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also reported as

81 Taxmann.com 126

Judgments citing CIT v. Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank

VAJRA RUBBER PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Preetha Shenoy, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 250Section 40A(7)

…ratuity Scheme. Accordingly, the ld AR submitted that the deduction cannot be denied. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank [2016] 388 ITR 228 (Raj) has considered the issue of allowability of contribution towards gratuity fund where the assessee has made application before the competent authorities and has held that – 9. On perusal of the above, it appears that hearing on the subject was going on in the aforesaid case and with reference to certain queries raised by the competent autho…

UNITY HOSPITAL P. LTD,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 69/COCH/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B. Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

…, but there was no response and the assessee cannot be penalized for inaction of the department. Reliance was placed on the decisions in the cases of PCIT v. English Indian Clays Ltd. [2018] 89 Taxman.com 134 (Kerala) and CIT v. Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank [2016] 388 ITR 228 (Raj). Page 3 of 7 5. The CIT(Appeals) observed that the gratuity fund has to be an approved fund as per Income Tax Rules 103 & 104, whereas in the case of the assessee approval was not received for the fund. He distinguished the first decision relied on by the assessee. As regards the second decision relied upon by the assessee, the CIT(A) had…

M/S. MAASS FLANGE INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1813/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1812 & 1813/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav

Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “बी ” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 1812 & 1813/PUN/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Maass Flange India Pvt. Ltd. Plot A, Markel Udyod Nagar, Markel, Tal. Khed, Pune-412 105 PAN : AABCN9163D .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishore Phadke Revenue by : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hea…

M/S. MAASS FLANGE INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1812 & 1813/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav

Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATERIALS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4017/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 4017/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2015-16) Lubrizol Advanced Materials India The Dy. Commissioner Of Private Limited. Income Tax-14(2)(1) Room No. 432, 4 T H Industrial Estate, Lbs Marg, फनाभ/ Floor Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Aayakar Bhawan, Mk Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aaaci4361B अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2021

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 37

…ooperated with the PCIT as and when called. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the case laws, which is identical to the facts of the present case of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank [2016] 388 ITR 228 ( Rajasthan) dated 12.07.2016 wherein it is held as under:- “The assessee cannot suffer for the inaction of the Revenue authorities and the AO ought not to have disallowed the claim merely because the Commissioner has not granted approval of the Gratuity Scheme. Once the assessee fulfills the condition laid down for approval having created a tru…

TATA SECURITIES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3589/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Tata Securities Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Income Tax -4(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Esplanade House, 29 Room No. 669, 6Th Floor, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400001 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact2150R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.M. Golvala (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon (DR)

Section 40

…taxmann.com 50 (Chennai-Trib.). Assessment Year: 2013-14 4. Capital IQ Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Hyderabad (2014) 49 taxmann.com 313 (Hyderabad-Trib). 5. CIT v. Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank, (2016) 388 ITR 228 (Rajasthan) 6. Rajasthan Financial Corpn. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 66 ITD 1936 (Jaipur) 7. M/s Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. v. The ACIT, Circle 6, Jaipur (ITA No. 352/JP/2017). 8. Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut v. Electra (Jaipur) (P) Ltd. (2006) 282 ITR 598 (Allahabad) 9. Peerless General Finance and Invest…

M/S. MAASS FLANGE INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1382/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1382/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 2(5)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1382/PUN/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Maass Flange India Pvt. Ltd. Plot –A, Markel Udyod Nagar, Markal, Tal. Khed, Pune-412 105. PAN : AABCN9163D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishore Phadke Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncemen…

M/S. PRAKASH SOFTWARE SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1390/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

…ITA No. 1390/Ahd/2014 M/s. Prakash Software Solution Pvt Ltd vs. ITO A.Y. 2010-11 Page 1 of 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘D’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Mahavir Prasad JM] I.T.A. No.1390/Ahd/2014 Assessment year: 2010-11 Prakash Software Solution Pvt Ltd …...…..………Appellant Induchacha House, Opp. Chhani Octroi Naka Baroda – 390 002 [PAN : AACCP 1776 D] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (1), Baroda …………….Respondent Appearances by: Mehul K Patel for the appellant V K Singh for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: November 13, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order: No…

WICHITRA AUTO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 104/CHNY/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2017AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.RFor Respondent: 19.06.2017

Section 36(1)(v)

…e office of CIT as to non-granting of approval, the assessee cannot be held to be non-complaint of statute and disallowance is not warranted. The ld.A.R relied on the judgement of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank in (2016) 388 ITR 228(Raj.) In my opinion, the AO has not brought on record the exact position of the application seeking approval of Gratuity Fund Scheme made by the assessee to the CIT. Hence, it is appropriate to remit the issue in dispute to the file of AO to bring on record the exact position of the application seeking approval of Gratuity Fund Scheme. Further, a…