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 411High Court2014#127 most cited

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.

524

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur · SBBJ · employees contribution to PF · ESI payment · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · Section 2(24)(x) · Section 139(1) · due date of return · belated deposit · deduction of welfare funds

Also reported as

363 ITR 7099 DTR 131225 Taxmann 6

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 145A Section 234B Section 234C Section 37(1)Section 43B Section 10(23C)Section 11

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

employees contribution to pf section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 2(24)section 43b section 36(1)section 43 section 36 section 139(1)section 139 section 13 section 143(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

Wahid Khan, Bhiwadi vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Alwar /DCIT CPC Bengaluru, Alwar/CPC Bengaluru

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

ITA 166/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…of the assessee is allowable u/s 36(1) 2 Shri Wahid Khan, Bhiwadi. (va) r.w.s. 43B of the I.T. Act 1961, in view of binding decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the cases of CIT VS State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur reported in 2014 363 ITR 70 Rajasthan, CIT Vs Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited reported in 2014 363 ITR 307 Rajasthan and CIT Vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited reported in 2014 3 66 ITR 163 Rajasthan, which may kindly be allowed as the ruling of decision of Hon'ble SC in case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd vs CIT and amendments to section 36(1)(va) and sec. 43…

Satpal Singh Sandhu, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 4/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 04/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cseps7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी रवीश सूद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 04/RPR/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 PAN : CSEPS7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nitin Goyal, CA Revenue by : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date…

Bhanu Parkash Bansal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward2(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 133/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (E written submission)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 5

…per section 143(1)(a)(iv). 2 SHRI BHANU PRAKASH BANSAL VS ITO,WARD 2(3), KOTA (ii) the said amount has been paid before due date of filing of return and thus cannot be added to income in view of decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. SBBJ 99 DTR 131 and CIT vs. Jaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 98 DTR 109 and Honble ITAT Jaipur in case of Nigam Jewels Pvt Ltd. vs. ADIT/DCIT ITA. No. 356/JP/2022 2. That ld. CIT(A) has wrongly interpreted that by late deposit of employee contribution, the employers get unjustly enriched by keeping the money belonging to the employees. He has ignored that…

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

ITA 94/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. RuniPal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…evident from the tables reproduced at Pg 2 to 4 of the assessment order. 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 t…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 350/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…evident from the tables reproduced at Pg 3 & 4 of the assessment order. 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…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 200/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Ocean Exim India Private Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 37/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prabha Rana (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 3. CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163 4. Principal commission of Income –Tax v/s Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj.) 5. Income Tax vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj) iv. DCIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. the ITAT Jaipur Bench ‘B’ ITA No. 1287/JP/2019 Jan 18, 2021 (2021) 61CCH 0057 Jaipur Trib v. So your honour the impugned ESI/PF disallowance is requested to order to delete the addition. Kindly allow the assessee’s appeal” Per contra, the ld. Sr. DR supported the contentions raised in the 7. o…

Bikaner Engineering Works, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 372/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beign, JCIT

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

…s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, 99 DTR 131 (Raj) BIKANEER ENGINEERING WORKS VS ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 4. CIT vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 (Raj.) 5. Pr. CIT vs Rajasthan State Seed Corp. Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 267 (Raj) 6. ITO vs SBBJ (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj) 7. DCIT vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur Bench ITA No. 1287/JP/2019 dated 18-01-2021 – 61 CCH 0057 (Jpr. Trib) 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and also relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs CIT (Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 dat…

Paris Elysees India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 357/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’A’ 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. 357/JPR/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2018-19 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income Paris Elysees India Private Limited A-135, Perfume Factory, Vs. Tax, Heerawala, RIICO Industrial Area, Circle-7, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCP4088P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Asse…

M/S Nigam Jewels Pvt. Ltd., H-45, Sez 1, Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Baig (JCIT)

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

…account in computing the total income in the return as per section 143(1)(a)(iv) (ii) the said amount has been paid before due date of filing of return and thus cannot be added to income in view of decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CITvs. SBBJ 99 DTR 131 and CIT vs. Jaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 98 DTR 109.” 3.1 The ld. AR placed before us the additional ground challenging the adjustment u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and since this legal ground, the ld. DR did not objected to this legal ground and therefore we are admitting the additional ground for adjudication. 4. The brief fact of the c…

Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd, Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Aayakar Bhavan, Building Ak Nayak Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaacg 1846 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Babulal Sharma, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Babulal Sharma, AR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…decisions are in favour of assessee. i. favour of assessee. i. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.), ii. State Bank of Bikaner Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.), ii. State Bank of Bikaner Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.), ii. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [(2014) 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan)]. ii. Essae & Jaipur [(2014) 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan)]. ii. Essae & Jaipur [(2014) 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan)]. ii. Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 408 and iv. Spectrum Teraoka (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 408 and iv. Spectrum Teraoka (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 408 and iv. Spectrum Consultants India P. Ltd [(2014) 2 ITR Consultants India P. Lt…

Checkmate Services P Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

C.A. No.-002833-002833 - 2016Supreme Court12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…., second proviso to Section 43B was intended to give relief to the assesses. The interpretation in the impugned judgment of the Gujarat High Court and that of the Kerala High Court, focusing 12 Commissioner of Income Tax V. State Bank of Bikaner, (2014) 363 ITR 70. 13 Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 366 ITR 408. 14 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327. 15 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merchem Ltd., ITA No. 402/2009. 10 only on Section 36(1)(va) is contrary to what Parliament intend. It was argued by learned counsel that…

Rajasthan Ex-Servicemen Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 294/JPR/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Oct 2022AY 2020-2021

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ing assessment year 2014-15 in ITA No. 503/JP/2017 dated 08.08.2017 has also taken a similar view. The ld. A/R placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. JVVNL Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 207 (Raj.), CIT vs. SBBJ Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 70, PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (DB IT 150/2016) (Raj.), CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 163 and the decision Jaipur Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board in ITA No. 981/JP/2017. It was further submitted that the recently Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal has also ta…

Castamet Works Private Limited, Kharwa vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…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. 187/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18 cuke Castamet Works Private Limited Principle Commissioner of Vs. Village – Kharwa,Tehsil- Masuda Income Tax, Udaipur Kharwa, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCC 5624 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Prakul Khurana (A…

Shri Umesh Raosaheb Pawar, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Thane

In the result, Ground No.2

ITA 1901/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 1901/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2018-19) Shri Umesh Raosaheb Pawar Patil v. DCIT – 3 102, Shree Ganga Prasad Ashar I.T. Park, Road No. 16Z Ram Ganesh Gadkari Road Wagle Industrial Estate Ghantali, Sainath Chowk Thane, Mumbai - 400604 Thane - 400602 PAN: AAUPP3270B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Manoj Sinha Date of Hearing : 28.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is file…

M/S, Madras Hydraulic Hose Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 702/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय+ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.702/Chny/2022 (िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/s. Madras Hydraulic Hose Pvt. Ltd. DCIT बनाम/ Flat No. 5, Harrington Apartments, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 211, 98, Harrington Road, Vs. Chennai. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACM-4367-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे…

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 661/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.660/Chny/2022 (िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.661/Chny/2022 (िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Late Mr. Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj DCIT बनाम/ Rep. by Mr. Shankar Ganesh CPC, No. 10, 2nd Street,Ulaganathapuram, Bangalore. Vs. Ennore, Chennai – 600 057. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AECPD-3635-A (अप…

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 660/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.660/Chny/2022 (िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.661/Chny/2022 (िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Late Mr. Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj DCIT बनाम/ Rep. by Mr. Shankar Ganesh CPC, No. 10, 2nd Street,Ulaganathapuram, Bangalore. Vs. Ennore, Chennai – 600 057. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AECPD-3635-A (अप…

Rsg Solutions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi

ITA 1478/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Soni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR) and Ms. Rajeshjwari R., JCIT, Sr. DR

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

…wed the decision of Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and dissented with the otherwise judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Spectrum Consultants India P. Ltd. (supra) and Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., (2014) 368 ITR 749. 25. Before following a particular view when there is divergence in views of different High Courts, we find it appropriate to examine Supreme Court…