What is CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur authority for?

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

How many judgments cite CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur?

524 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(va), Section 145A, Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 37(1), Section 43B.

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411)

Taj Granites Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 79/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

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

…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 (SC) 10. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) also contended that the…

Rajesh Motors (Auto) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 311/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

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

…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 (SC) 10. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) also contended that the…

Ajeet Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

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

…d And Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd [2014] 363 ITR 30 (Rajasthan HC) • CIT Vs Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sang h Limited, Udaipur [2014] 366 ITR 163 (Rajasthan HC) • CIT vs. State bank of Bikaner &Jaipur and Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan HC) • Pr. CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages nrporation Ltd (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 185 (SC) • CIT Vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Born) • CIT Vs. Aimil Ltd (321 ITR 508) (Delhi HC) 7.4 It is pertinent to mention here that various courts have already examined this issue. In cases where the employees share is not made in…

Mr. Atulbhai Ravjibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 300/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2018-19 Mr. Atulbhai Ravjibhai Patel, The Dcit, S-09, Second Floor, Indiabulls Vs Cpc, Mega Mall, Jetalpur Road, Bangalore Vadodara Pan : Ahupp 6260 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Written Submission On Record Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…sessee that the CPC is not correct in making the disallowance on the late payment of the provident fund amount by relying upon the following case laws:- i) CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) ii) CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) Atulbhai Ravjibhai Patel Vs. DCIT AY : 2018-19 5 iii) CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mils (P.) Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 167 (P&H) iv) CIT vs. Nuchem Ltd. [2015] 59 taxmann.com 455 (P&H) v) CIT vs. Magus Customers Dialog (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 94 vi) Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT, 366 ITR 408 (Kar) vii) Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd v.…