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 367,181 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

Elico Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1120/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1120/HYD/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Elico Limited, Asst. Commissioner HYDERABAD Vs of Income Tax, [PAN: AAACE5140L] Circle-2(2), HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri S.Rama Rao, AR For Revenue : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of Hearing : 12-11-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 18-11-2020 O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, A.M. : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of th…

M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the ground is partly allowed

ITA 1094/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: The Roi Filling & Is Allowable As Held By Various Courts. The Disallowance So Made & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A), Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts & Hence Kindly Be Deleted In Full.”

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (ITP)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 139

…f one day only and well before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139 of the Act. It was submitted that the issue is now no more res-integra in as much as the same is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. SBBJ (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj) and CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 2 M/s Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj). It was accordingly submitted that the disallowance so made may kindly be deleted. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that on examination of books of accounts, the Assessing Officer observed that the exp…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु#वु$ आर.एल. रे&डी, "या)यक सद"य के सम* BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L.REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER )नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING v. M/s.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [PAN: AAICS 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, CA : Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT /…

M/S Dreamax Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 145(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…e is warranted in terms of following judicial pronouncements. (i) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 163 (Raj) (ii) CIT Vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited [2014] 49 taxmann.com 540 (Rajasthan) (iv) Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 224 ITR 677 (SC); 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (v) 2015 (1) TMI 974 – Gujarat high court in the case of CIT V/s Noble Detective & Security Services Pvt. Ltd Appeal No. 251 of 2007 and (vi) CIT v/s Aimil…

M/S, Forte Foliage Pvt. Ltd, 217, Laxmi Complex, M.I. Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 617/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: The End Of The Financial Year Itself & Therefore, The Payment Was Made Much Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 37(1)

…considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 as well as decision in case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 and in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) though has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble High Court however, disallowance made by the AO are sustained as he misunderstood the decision…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2885/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner M/s. Repco Home Finance v. Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, 33, North Usman Road, Corporate Circle-5(1), T.Nagar, Chennai-600034 Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAACR 0209 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri ARV Sreenivasan, अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/…

Accme (Urvashi Pumps) Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 316/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 316/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke M/S. Accme (Urvashi Pumps) Engineers (P) Ltd. The Ito Vs. A-407, A/A Road No. 14 Vki Area, Ward- 4(2) Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aabca 5655 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respo Ndent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rohan Sogani, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 27 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 24-01-2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 1,53,053/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…Acme (Urvashi Pumps) Engineers Pvt.Ltd. , Ward- 4(2), Jaipur income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue.” The said decision was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported 250 taxmann 32. Accordingly, disallowances/additions made by the AO on…

M/S M.P.Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 273/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. M.P. Rajya Van Vikas Pr. Cit-1 Nigam Ltd. Bhopal बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Panchanan Building Vs. T.T. Nagar Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaccm0331R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…and filing of return of income. It is submitted that the said expenditure is allowable in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme 319 ITR 306, judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70 and also judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam 363 ITR 307 it is contended that the special leave petitions filed by the revenue against these judgements have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is contended that the Ld. Pr. [ITA No.273/Ind/2018] [M/s. M.P. Raj…

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

…ns of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High 16 DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs M/s.J.K. International, Jaipur Courts. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above case are as under:- CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj) (HC) :-Where PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF, etc., was paid after the due date under the respective acts but before filing of return of income u/s 139(1), it could not be disallowed u/s 43B or u/s 36(1)(va). CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj.) (HC):- The assessee claimed payment of GPF, CPF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s.…

Uttam Bharat Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) and Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Jai Singh (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

…vt. Ltd., Jaipur. the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue.” The said decision was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported 250 taxmann 32. Accordingly, disallowances/additions made by the AO on a…

M/S Jaipur Stock Securities Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 992/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)

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

M/S. Axis Motors Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 289/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…wed the decision of Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and dissented with the otherwise judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Spectrum Consultants India P. Ltd. (supra) and Bombay High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs 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…

Sanghvi Diamond Mfg. Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is set aside for statistical purpose

ITA 168/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Sanghvi Diamonds Mfg. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 103 To 113, Sanghvi Building, Op. Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. Prannat Hospital, Ved Road, Surat. [Pan: Aadcs 4321 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Sanghvi Diamonds Mfg. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 103 To 113, Sanghvi Building, Op. Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. Prannat Hospital, Ved Road, Surat. [Pan: Aadcs 4321 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 014Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IT, Jaipur-II, Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nighm Ltd. Rajasthan High Court :[2014] 366 ITR 163 : May 13, 2013 CIT, Udaipur Vs. M/s.Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Udaipur Rajasthan High Court [2014] 363 ITR 70 : January 6, 2014 CIT VS. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Rajasthan High Court : August 4, 2016 CIT, Jaipur-2 Vs. M/s.Rajasthan State Befverages Corpn. Ltd.,” 6. She requested that disallowance of deduction on account of employee contribution of ESI and PF u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) may be allowed of a…

Om Metals Auto Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1315/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Maheshwari (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)

…ear itself but after the due date of payment as per respective Acts. 7. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 as well as decision in case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 and in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163. 8. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) though has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble High Court however, disallowance made by the AO are sustained as he misunderstood the decisi…

M/S Gosil Exports P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1064/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date Of Submission Of Return U/S 139(1).” 2 Gosil Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Shambhu Lal Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Anuradha (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…of income but after the due date of payment as per respective Acts. 3. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 as well as decision in case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 and in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163. 4. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) though has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble High Court however, disallowance made by the AO are sustained as he misunderstood the decisi…

Rajasthan Cottage Industries, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 983/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Due Date

For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)

Section 139(1)

…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. 983/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Rajasthan Cottage Industries The ITO, Shilpgram Complex, Golimar Garden, Vs. Ward 5(1), Amer Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABFR 1944 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Madhukar Garg (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue…

Herrenknecht India P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

…Oka (P) Ltd .. v. DCIT [(2014) 366 ITR 408 (Kam.)(HC)] vii. CIT v. Hernia Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [(2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H)(HC)] viii. CIT v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. [(2014) 363 ITR 307 (Rajasthan)] ix. CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [(2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) (HC)] x. CIT v. Mark Auto Industries Ltd. [(2014) 358 ITR 43 (P&H)] xi. CIT v. Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd[(2014) 266 CTR 241 (KRN.)(HC)] xii. CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd.[ (2014) 43 taxmann.com 396 (Cal.)(HC)] xiii. CIT v. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. [(2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand)] CIT vis. ANZ Information Technology (P) Ltd. {(2009) 318 IT…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ganpati Exclusive Designer Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 696/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)

…he ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court including decision in case of CIT vs. SBBJ, 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) as well as CIT vs. JVVNL, 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). Subsequently, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) also decided this issue in favour of the assessee in para 6 to 10 as under :- “6. It was contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the CIT(A) and ITAT fell…

M/S Ganpati Exclusive Designer Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)

M/S. Dhabriya Aggolomerates Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 861/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return & The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…llowance of Rs. 6,60,27,182/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A), who after considering the submissions and relying upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131 (Raj.) deleted the disallowance. 4. Regarding both the issues relating to PF & ESI, the controversy is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 16249/2014 (The State of Rajasthan CIT, Jaipur vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), hence the issues are decided subject to SLP.” Therefore, in view of the earlier decision which was followed by…