CIT v. JVVNL

265 CTR 62High Court2014#2832 most cited

What is CIT v. JVVNL authority for?

Employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), is allowable as a deduction even if paid after the due date stipulated by the respective Acts. Such deposits are not disallowable under section 43B or section 36(1)(va).

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. JVVNL · CIT vs. JVVNL · 98 DTR 105 · 265 CTR 62 · section 43B · section 36(1)(va) · employee's PF deposit · employee's ESI deposit · due date of return filing · section 139(1)

Also reported as

98 DTR 105

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 36(1)(iv)section 80(p)(2)(d)section 43b(b)section 194a(3)(v)section 194a(3)section 10aa

Judgments citing CIT v. JVVNL

ITO, Jaipur vs. Professional H R Services Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1120/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(10)(va)Section 43B

…and PF has been paid by the appellant, in all instances, before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1). This fact is therefore, not in dispute. In view of the judgments of the Rajasthan High Court in the case Jaipur Vidhyut Vithran Nigam Ltd., 265 CTR 62 ( Raj.), CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131 ( Raj.) and ITAT, Jaipur, in the case of the assessee, the claim of the appellant is allowable. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is directed to be deleted. This ground is allowed. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR relied on the order AO. 2.3 On…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. M/S. Gangaur Export Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1034/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathur (CA) and Shri Satish Ajmera (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…submissions, partly allowed the appeal. While allowing the appeal, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of PF & ESI by following the judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Jaipur Didhyut Vithran Nigam Ltd. 265 CTR 62 (Raj.), CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131 (Raj.) and the order of ITAT Jaipur. The ld. CIT (A) also partly allowed the claim of depreciation after considering the submissions and following his earlier order for the A.Y. 2011-12 in the assessee’s own case. Aggrieved, the revenue has filed the present appeal before this Tr…