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 366,339 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

DCIT, Cir-I, Kolkata vs. M/S the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 421/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM] I.T.A No.421/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. Circle-1, Kolkata. (PAN: AAACT9780F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 01.03.2017 Date of pronouncement: 01.03.2017 For the Appellant: N o n e For the Respondent: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA ORDER Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM: This appeal by revenue is arising out of order of CIT(A), Central-1, Kolkata vide appeal No. 104/CC-VII/CIT(A)C-I/11-12 dated 12.12.2003.…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Venkateswara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 762/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT-. DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 36(10)(va)Section 43B

…i Shailendra Garg, C/o M/s. Garment Craft India (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 804/JP/2015 for the assessment year 2010- 11). It may be further noted that the Hon'ble Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR 59 had considered this issue in detail at para 7 to 9 of its order as under:- ‘’7. Further, the hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1 (SC) while dismissing the special leave petition preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court observed as under : ‘’In the present case, we are concerned wi…

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

…i Shailendra Garg, C/o M/s. Garment Craft India (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 804/JP/2015 for the assessment year 2010- 11). It may be further noted that the Hon'ble Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR 59 had considered this issue in detail at para 7 to 9 of its order as under:- 4 The ITO,Ward- 6(1), Jaipur vs. M/s. Professional H.R. Services (P) Ltd. , Jaipur ‘’7. Further, the hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1 (SC) while dismissing the special leave petition preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of…

ITO, Jaipur vs. S. Brothers Facilities Management, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 957/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jan 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Anil Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Addl.CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…making the said disallowance. The A.R. placed reliance upon a number of judicial pronouncements. It may be mentioned that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. SBBJ (2014) 265 CTR (Raj) 471 and CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR 59 has held that where PF/ ESI were paid after due date under respective Acts but before due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1), these cannot be disallowed u/s 43B or u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, 1961. In the instant case under consideration, the employee’s contribution on account of PF / ESI were paid by the appellant prior to due date of fi…

M/S. the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 547/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2006-07 M/s The Hooghly Mills V/s. DCIT, Central Circle-VII, Co. Ltd. C/o, Salarpuria 18, Rabindra Sarani, Jajodia & Co. 7, C.R. Kolkata-700 001 Avenue, Kolkata-700 072 [PAN No.AAACT 9780 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-05-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 15-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pro…