CIT v. SBBJ

265 CTR 471High Court2014#4752 most cited

What is CIT v. SBBJ authority for?

Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is not permissible if employee's contributions to PF/ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), even if paid after the due date stipulated by the respective Acts.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. SBBJ · 265 CTR 471 · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · employee's contribution · PF · ESI · due date · return of income · disallowance

Issues it is cited on

section 143(1)(a)(iv)retrospective amendmentsection 36(1)(iv)section 10aasection 2(24)(x)section 10ainterest u/s 234asection 36(1)(va)complete scrutinysection 2(24)limited scrutinysection 143(1)(a)

Judgments citing CIT v. SBBJ

A3Logics (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

…any disallowance on this count. Further the subjected assessment order, in this case was passed on 1.02.2021 when the binding decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court were available before the ld. AO in the cases of 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 various other cases of Rajasthan High Court. The AO thus acted in accordance with the law as interpreted by the jurisdictional HC, ITAT which prevailed on the date of the passing assessment order dt. 01.02.2021 hence, no fault can be found in his action and in particular…

Laxman Nainani, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 21/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…'ble Bench which is the Jurisdictional ITAT, in so many cases had 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 con…

Swastic Oil Industries, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 35/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…e Bench which is the Jurisdictional ITAT, in so many cases had already 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…

Swastic Oil Industires, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 34/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…e Bench which is the Jurisdictional ITAT, in so many cases had already 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…

Nirmal Kumar Bardiya, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 260/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…f the actual payment is made on or before the return filed as per the principle laid down by court in Vinay Cement case [2007] 213 CTR 268. The Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. SBBJ [2014] 265 CTR 411 and CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. [2014] 265 CTR 59 held that where PF/ESI paid after due date under respective act but before filing of return u/s 139 (1) cannot be disallowed u/s 43B or u/s 36 (1) (va) of the Act. Recently Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court again in case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Ganga 7 ITA 60/JP/2021 Nirmal Kumar Bardiya vs ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (2017) 393 I…

Rmc Gems India Ltd, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…f the actual payment is made on or before the return filed as per the principle laid down by court in Vinay Cement case [2007] 213 CTR 268. The Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. SBBJ [2014] 265 CTR 411 and CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. [2014] 265 CTR 59 held that where PF/ESI paid after due date under respective act but before filing of return u/s 139 (1) cannot be disallowed u/s 43B or u/s 36 (1) (va) of the Act. Recently Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court again in case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Ganga Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 421 reiterated the same view and SLP filed by department again…

Sanjeevani Super Sueciality Healthcare Bhopal P Ltd, Bhopal vs. Dy, CIT, CPC, Bengalur, Bengalu

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 116/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2018-19 Sanjeevani Super Speciality Dcit(Cpc) Healthcare Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aarcs8080L Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra Cit-Dr, Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.04.2021 Which Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 16.10.2019 Framed By Dcit,Cpc, Bangalore.

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 39(1)Section 43B

…te of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgement of this Court in Commissioner o/Income Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nig,lII!1 Ltd (2011) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) : (2014) 265 CTR 471 and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue. 9. Subsequently in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Parag Fans & Cooling System Pvt. Ltd.(supra) similar view was taken by this Tribunal. Relevant extract is reproduced below: 20. We find that there occurred some delay on the part of the assessee in depos…

Natraj Dal Mill, Indore vs. ACIT 5 (1), Indore

In the result, Appeal of the assessee namely Natraj Dal Mill in

ITA 153/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2019-20 Natraj Dal Mill Acit 5(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadfn3699P Appellant By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Ashok Somani Dy. Cit, Ps, Indore Bangalore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Agtps5575R Appellant By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gour, Ars Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

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

…te of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgement of this Court in Commissioner o/Income Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nig,lII!1 Ltd (2011) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) : (2014) 265 CTR 471 and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue. 11. Subsequently in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Parag Fans & Natraj Dal Mill & Ashok Somani ITA No.153 & 131/Ind/2021 Cooling System Pvt. Ltd.(supra) similar view was taken by this Tribunal. Relevant extract is reproduced below: 20. We find that ther…

Shri Ashok Somani, Indore vs. The Dy CIT, Ps, Bangalore

In the result, Appeal of the assessee namely Natraj Dal Mill in

ITA 131/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2019-20 Natraj Dal Mill Acit 5(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadfn3699P Appellant By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Ashok Somani Dy. Cit, Ps, Indore Bangalore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Agtps5575R Appellant By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gour, Ars Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

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

…te of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgement of this Court in Commissioner o/Income Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nig,lII!1 Ltd (2011) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) : (2014) 265 CTR 471 and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue. 11. Subsequently in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Parag Fans & Natraj Dal Mill & Ashok Somani ITA No.153 & 131/Ind/2021 Cooling System Pvt. Ltd.(supra) similar view was taken by this Tribunal. Relevant extract is reproduced below: 20. We find that ther…

Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar Kabra, Bhopal vs. DCIT/ACIT 2 (1) Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 96/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2017-18 Shri Bhuvnesh Dcit/Acit 2(1) Bhopal Kumar Kabra बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aebpk8409E Revenue By Shri Arpit Mundra, Ar Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Bhopal Dated 05.03.2021 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Bhuvnesh Kumar Kabra Short The ‘Act’) Dated 21.05.2019 Framed By The Assessing Officer Of Cpc Bangalore.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(X)Section 36(1)(va)

…te of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgement of this Court in Commissioner o/Income Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nig,lII!1 Ltd (2011) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) : (2014) 265 CTR 471 and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue. 7. Ld. DR failed to bring any binding precedence in its favour of the jurisdictional High Court on this issue, therefore, the issue raised in the instant appeal is squarely covered by decision of this Tribunal. We, accordingly set aside the finding…

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

ITA 1162/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

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.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…rcumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5719/- made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act (i.e. PF/ESI addition) relying on the ratio of CIT Vs 38 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. SBBJ 265 CTR 471 which is subjudice as SLP has been admitted by the Hon’ble Apex Court? 7. Whether on the cats and in the circumstances of the case in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,41,26,418/- made under the income from other sources without determining the fact whether the receipt shown in form no. 26AS has been duly accounted for…

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

ITA 1161/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

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.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…rcumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5719/- made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act (i.e. PF/ESI addition) relying on the ratio of CIT Vs 38 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. SBBJ 265 CTR 471 which is subjudice as SLP has been admitted by the Hon’ble Apex Court? 7. Whether on the cats and in the circumstances of the case in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,41,26,418/- made under the income from other sources without determining the fact whether the receipt shown in form no. 26AS has been duly accounted for…

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

ITA 1160/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

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.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…rcumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5719/- made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act (i.e. PF/ESI addition) relying on the ratio of CIT Vs 38 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. SBBJ 265 CTR 471 which is subjudice as SLP has been admitted by the Hon’ble Apex Court? 7. Whether on the cats and in the circumstances of the case in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,41,26,418/- made under the income from other sources without determining the fact whether the receipt shown in form no. 26AS has been duly accounted for…

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

ITA 1159/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

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.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…rcumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5719/- made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act (i.e. PF/ESI addition) relying on the ratio of CIT Vs 38 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. SBBJ 265 CTR 471 which is subjudice as SLP has been admitted by the Hon’ble Apex Court? 7. Whether on the cats and in the circumstances of the case in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,41,26,418/- made under the income from other sources without determining the fact whether the receipt shown in form no. 26AS has been duly accounted for…

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

ITA 1158/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

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.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…rcumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5719/- made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act (i.e. PF/ESI addition) relying on the ratio of CIT Vs 38 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. SBBJ 265 CTR 471 which is subjudice as SLP has been admitted by the Hon’ble Apex Court? 7. Whether on the cats and in the circumstances of the case in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,41,26,418/- made under the income from other sources without determining the fact whether the receipt shown in form no. 26AS has been duly accounted for…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Jk International, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

ITA 716/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar,, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10ASection 115BSection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

…e made on this account. Further, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the cae of CIT vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 616 and also in the case of CIT vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur 265 CTR 471. In view of the above decisions, I find that it is not disputed that the payments on account of ESI and PF have not been deposited by the appellant. 9.3 Further, in view of the above judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been subsequently followed by the Jurisdictional High Court, I find that there is no justification in the action o…

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd (Formerly Knows As M/S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd), Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 651/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 650 & 651/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd., Tax, Vs. (Formerly Known As M/S. Orchid Central Circle – 1(1), Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,) Chennai . 313, Orchid Towers, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco 0402B] (&'यथ(/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…. On the issue of disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va), the CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal relying on the following decisions i. Delhi High Court in AIMIL Ltd (2010) (321 ITR 508) (Delhi) ii. Rajasthan High Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) (265 CTR 471) (Rajasthan) iii. Uttarakand High Court in Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd (2013) (356 ITR 327) iv. Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd (2013) (350 ITR 327) v. Bombay High Court in Ghatge Patil Transports (2014) (368 ITR 749) (Bombay) With regard to the disallowance made u/s. 14A, relying on this tribunal decision in the case of ACIT vs M…

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd (Formerly Knows As M/S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd), Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 650/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 650 & 651/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd., Tax, Vs. (Formerly Known As M/S. Orchid Central Circle – 1(1), Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,) Chennai . 313, Orchid Towers, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco 0402B] (&'यथ(/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…. On the issue of disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va), the CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal relying on the following decisions i. Delhi High Court in AIMIL Ltd (2010) (321 ITR 508) (Delhi) ii. Rajasthan High Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) (265 CTR 471) (Rajasthan) iii. Uttarakand High Court in Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd (2013) (356 ITR 327) iv. Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd (2013) (350 ITR 327) v. Bombay High Court in Ghatge Patil Transports (2014) (368 ITR 749) (Bombay) With regard to the disallowance made u/s. 14A, relying on this tribunal decision in the case of ACIT vs M…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 487/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Vimlendu Verma (CIT)For Respondent: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 115J

…return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The said findings remain uncontroverted before us. Following the decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam ltd 265 CTR 62 and Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd 265 CTR 59, he has allowed the claim of the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who, following the decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court referred supra, has directed the deletion of 10 ITA. No. 487 & 488/JP/2018 DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Jaipur disallowance so made by the AO. I…

ACIT, Alwar vs. Kalas Biotech Ltd., Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 180/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sagoni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 131Section 40

…is issue, which are squarely applicable in this case. Further, AO has also ignored the judgments of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur as reported in 360 ITR 70, CIT vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. 265 CTR 59, etc; came to the similar conclusion vide order dated 06, January, 2014 that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act, but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed. 13.7 In view of the above facts and after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and…

CIT v. SBBJ (265 CTR 471) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax