CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

Sh. Prabhat Singh, Shree Cement Ltd., Andheri Deori, Beawar, Ajmer vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

…s 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 foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 112/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Sh. Prabhat Singh CPC, Vs. Shree Cement Ltd., Bengaluru. Andheri Deori, Beawar, Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFVPS 9125 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choud…

Sh. Virendra Kumar Ahuja, B-85, 22 Godam Industrial Area, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…s 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 foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 124/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 cuke Sh. Virendra Kumar Ahuja The ITO, Vs. B-85, 22 Godam Industrial Area, Ward-2(3), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABWPA 2700 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Moni…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…s 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 foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 122/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke M/s Nigam Jewels Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Vs. H-45, SEZ 1, RIICO Industrial Area, CPC, Sitapura, Jaipur. Bangalore, LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCN 2403 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :…

Pee Tee Turners, Jaipur vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…s आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 105/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke M/s Pee Tee Turners Assistant Director of CPC, Vs. C-2, Sikar House, Centralized Processing Outside Chandpole Gate, Jaipur. Centre, Bengaluru. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCP 4423 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv…

Shashi Rajawat, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 81/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shashi Rajawat, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 58, Ambabari Shopping Centre, Ward 4(2), Ambabari, Jaipur-302023. Jaipur Pan No.: Abupr 2195 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Rathore (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23/07/2021 For The A.Y. 2018-19. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Disallowing The Pf & Esi Payments Amounting To Rs. 97,290/- Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return During The Year. 2. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts. 3. That The Petitioner Craves To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Due Date.”

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 81/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shashi Rajawat, cuke I.T.O., Vs. 58, Ambabari Shopping Centre, Ward 4(2), Ambabari, Jaipur-302023. Jaipur PAN No.: ABUPR 2195 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Rathore (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 0…

M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 76/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. 602, Elements Mall, Dcm, Ajmer Cpc, Road, Jaipur. Bengaluru. Pan No.: Aabfb 3002 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 29/06/2021 For The A.Y. 2018-19. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 12,50,413/- U/S 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf & Esi. She Has Further Erred In Making The Addition By Not Following The Decision Of Jurisdictional High Court. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 76/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. 602, Elements Mall, DCM, Ajmer CPC, Road, Jaipur. Bengaluru. PAN No.: AABFB 3002 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :…

Dhabriya Polywood Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT-C-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…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 foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 53/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 cuke Dhabriya Polywood Limited The ADIT, Vs. B 9D 1, Malviya Industrial Area, CPC, Jaipur-302017. Bengaluru. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCD 5090 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) & Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A) jktLo d…

K.P. Airtech, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…er than the scheduled dates as per provisions of PF Act, but deposited prior to filing the return under section 139(1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the binding judgment of the Honorable jurisdiction High Court of Rajasthan in the case of ITO vs. SBBJ (363 ITR 70).” 5. In ITA No. 42/JP/2021 for A.Y 2019-20, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as he failed to appreciate that disallowance under section 36(1)(va) is highly debatable issue and hence such adjustment is not permissible while processing the return under section 143(1) of…

K.P. Airtech, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…er than the scheduled dates as per provisions of PF Act, but deposited prior to filing the return under section 139(1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the binding judgment of the Honorable jurisdiction High Court of Rajasthan in the case of ITO vs. SBBJ (363 ITR 70).” 5. In ITA No. 42/JP/2021 for A.Y 2019-20, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as he failed to appreciate that disallowance under section 36(1)(va) is highly debatable issue and hence such adjustment is not permissible while processing the return under section 143(1) of…

Sohan Lal Tambi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…er than the scheduled dates as per provisions of PF Act, but deposited prior to filing the return under section 139(1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the binding judgment of the Honorable jurisdiction High Court of Rajasthan in the case of ITO vs. SBBJ (363 ITR 70).” 2. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee had collected a sum of Rs. 2,17,664/- from its employees against their contribution towards Employees State Insurance and Provident Fund. As per provisions of ESI Act and PF Act all such contributions are required to be deposited within a certain time. However due to some d…

Soni Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…ed [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) (e) CIT Vs Vinay Cement Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd 363 ITR 307 (Raj) (g) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) (h) CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) In view of above, your honours are therefore humbly requested to please delete the addition. Ground No. 2- Disallowance of Rs.150279/- sustained being expenses relating to earlier years. Facts and Submissions – (i) There remains some bills of expenses under dispute at the year-end resulting in accrual of liability in the year of settleme…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1287/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2016-17 D.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Vs. Circle-6, Limited, Jaipur. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj 6373 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Verma (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : P.C. Parwal (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 03/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 6,88,83,063/- Made For Depositing The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Beyond The Prescribed Time Limited Provided In The Respective Acts. 2. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Holding That The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Are Governed By The Provisions Of Section 43B & Not By Section 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.”

…eals pertain to contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI and the said issues shave already been decided against the Revenue by this Court vide Judgement dated 06- 01-2014 passed in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj). However, the Revenue has preferred SLP (C ) No. 016249/2014 against the aforesaid judgement before the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel submit that although this Court has answered the question with respect to interpretation to Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act against the Revenue but correctness of that judgement is to be 7 ITA 1287/JP/2019…