CIT v. JVVNL

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” 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. 190/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke A3logics (India) Private Limited PCIT, Vs. H 1-458-460, Sitapura Jaipur Jaipur-1 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCA 9763 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh.…

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)

…td., Udaipur (2014), 366 ITR 163 (Raj) 3. CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. (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. DC…

LAXMAN NAINANI,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 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)

…already decided the sue in favour of assessee which was affirmed by several decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in favour of Assessee Kindly refer CIT vs State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur (2014 265 CTR 471 (Raj CIT vs Jaipur Vidyut VitranNogam limited (2014) 265 CTR 62 (Raj) and many more. Needless to say that the decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court were binding upon the sub-ardmate officers, with reference to the assessee situated in such jurisdiction. No doubt there were contrary decisions too but then the issue was highly debatable and controversial 6 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA…

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)

…er. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. 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 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…

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTRIES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

…dy decided the issue in favour of assessee which was affirmed by several decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in favour of Assessee. Kindly refer CIT vs State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur (2014 265 CTR 471 (Raj)) CIT vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam limited (2014) 265 CTR 62 (Raj) and many more. Needless to say that the decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court were binding upon the sub-ordinate officers, with reference to the assessee situated in such jurisdiction. No doubt there were contrary decisions too but then the issue was highly debatable and controversial. 4. Further, it is also well settled that retrospecti…

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTIRES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

…dy decided the issue in favour of assessee which was affirmed by several decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in favour of Assessee. Kindly refer CIT vs State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur (2014 265 CTR 471 (Raj)) CIT vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam limited (2014) 265 CTR 62 (Raj) and many more. Needless to say that the decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court were binding upon the sub-ordinate officers, with reference to the assessee situated in such jurisdiction. No doubt there were contrary decisions too but then the issue was highly debatable and controversial. 4. Further, it is also well settled that retrospecti…

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)

…der. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. 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 a…

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)

…der. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. 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 a…

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)

…der. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. 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 a…

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

…iance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- • CIT Vs. 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 Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) • CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.) (HC) (d) 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 contribut…

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

…ng of return of income, no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) can be made and that this issue is settled in favour of the assesseee by the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and ITAT, which are produced as under:- “1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited 265 CTR 62 (Raj.). 2. VIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). 3. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 (Delhi H.C.) 4. CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Delhi (HC) 5. ACIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 20 taxmann.com 334 6. Universal Precision Screws vs. ACIT 69 taxmann.com 185 7. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 84 taxmann.com…

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

…ng of return of income, no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) can be made and that this issue is settled in favour of the assesseee by the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and ITAT, which are produced as under:- “1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited 265 CTR 62 (Raj.). 2. VIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). 3. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 (Delhi H.C.) 4. CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Delhi (HC) 5. ACIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 20 taxmann.com 334 6. Universal Precision Screws vs. ACIT 69 taxmann.com 185 7. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 84 taxmann.com…

RAJESH MOTORS (AUTO) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1) , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

…ng of return of income, no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) can be made and that this issue is settled in favour of the assesseee by the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and ITAT, which are produced as under:- “1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited 265 CTR 62 (Raj.). 2. VIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). 3. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 (Delhi H.C.) 4. CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Delhi (HC) 5. ACIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 20 taxmann.com 334 6. Universal Precision Screws vs. ACIT 69 taxmann.com 185 7. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 84 taxmann.com…

SHIIV VEG PRO PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…s the learned CIT Departmental Representative and considered the relevant material on record. This issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2014) 98 DTR (Raj) 105: (2014) 265 CTR 62 (Raj) as under : "6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue and have also gone through the impugned orders. In our view, no substantial question of law arises out of the orders of the Tribunal as it is an admitted fact that the entire amount was deposited by the respondent-assessee at least on or before th…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 60/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 cuke M/s. Nice Telecommunications (P) Ltd. ACIT Vs. 1-A,Keshav Nagar, Civil Lines Circle-6, Jaipur Jaipur – 302 019 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCN 1377K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vk…

DEVI SHANKER,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

…fore due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 which is verifiable from the Tax audit report and CIT(A) order. Hon’ble Bench, ITAT, Jaipur by following the binding judgments of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Jaipur v/s JVVNL (2014) 265 CTR 62 and in other cases, has consistently held that if the Employees contribution of PF & ESI is deposited before due date of filing return, no disallowance could be made u/s 43 B or 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Court. Hon'ble Bench has also in number of cases including in appellant's own case has held that the as the explanation inserted by the Finance…

KARNI KEHAR SECURITY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

…fore due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 which is verifiable from the Tax audit report and CIT(A) order. Hon’ble Bench, ITAT, Jaipur by following the binding judgments of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Jaipur v/s JVVNL (2014) 265 CTR 62 and in other cases, has consistently held that if the Employees contribution of PF & ESI is deposited before due date of filing return, no disallowance could be made u/s 43 B or 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Court. Hon'ble Bench has also in number of cases including in appellant's own case has held that the as the explanation inserted by the Finance…

GROUP ZERO,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

…fore due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 which is verifiable from the Tax audit report and CIT(A) order. Hon’ble Bench, ITAT, Jaipur by following the binding judgments of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Jaipur v/s JVVNL (2014) 265 CTR 62 and in other cases, has consistently held that if the Employees contribution of PF & ESI is deposited before due date of filing return, no disallowance could be made u/s 43 B or 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Court. Hon'ble Bench has also in number of cases including in appellant's own case has held that the as the explanation inserted by the Finance…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

…d. A.O. referred SLP filed before Supreme Court. However filing of SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court do not stay the operation of judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. It may be mentioned that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. JVVNL 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) has held that where PF/ESI were paid after due date under respective Act but before due date of filing of return of income u/s 139 (1), these cannot be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36 (1) (va) of the Act, 1961. Recently, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1184/JP/2018 vide orde…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

…d. A.O. referred SLP filed before Supreme Court. However filing of SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court do not stay the operation of judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. It may be mentioned that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. JVVNL 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) has held that where PF/ESI were paid after due date under respective Act but before due date of filing of return of income u/s 139 (1), these cannot be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36 (1) (va) of the Act, 1961. Recently, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1184/JP/2018 vide orde…