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

Aakar Foundry P Ltd, Pune vs. Centralized Proceedings Centre (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 404/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.404/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Aakar Foundry P. Ltd., Acit/Dcit, Central S.No.341/2, Thakar Vasti, Behind Vs Circle 2(3), Pune Nhec, Somatane Phata, Pune – 410506 Pan: Aafca8836J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-12 Dated 28.07.2021 Emanating Out Of Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As „The Act‟) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Learned Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs6,67,258/- On Account Of Delay In Depositing Employee'S Contribution To Pf /Esi Act Made By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc Bangalore. 2. The It Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That Amendment To Section 43B R.W.S 36(L)(Va) R.W.S 143(L)(A)(Iv) By Finance

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

…f PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com” Unquote 6. The SLP filed against the said decision has been dismissed by Hon‟ble SC. 7. Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd,IT APPEAL NOS. 1002 & 1034 OF 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2014 as under : Quote , “ In this manner, the amendment provided by Finance Act, 2003 put on par…

Durvankur Dining Hall, Pune vs. Centralized Proceedings Centre (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 403/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.403/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Durvankur Dining Hall Acit/Dcit, Circle 12, 1166, Sadashiv Peth, Near Hatti Vs Pune Ganpati, Above Kunbi Sahakari Bank, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aadfd9477B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), (Nfac), Dated 23.07.2021 Emanating Out Of Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As „The Act‟) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Learned Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs 5,35,998/- On Account Of Delay In Depositing Employee'S Contribution To Pf /Esi Act Made By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc Bangalore. 2. The It Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That Amendment To Section 43B R.W.S 36(L)(Va) R.W.S 143(L)(A)(Iv) By Finance

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

…f PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com” Unquote 6. The SLP filed against the said decision has been dismissed by Hon‟ble SC. 7. Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, IT APPEAL NOS. 1002 & 1034 OF 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2014 as under : Quote , “ In this manner, the amendment provided by Finance Act, 2003 put on pa…

Chiranjeev Restaurant & Foods Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Centralilized Proceedings Centre, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 402/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.402/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chiranjeev Restaurant & Foods P Centralized Proceedings Ltd. Vs Centre (Cpc), Bangalore D 503, Van Gough Bldg., Maestros Apartment, Salunkhe Vihar Road, Wanowrie, Pune-411048 Pan: Aabcc1926B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Dated 30.08.2021 Emanating Out Of Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As „The Act‟) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

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

…f PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com” Unquote ITA No.402/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18 Chiranjeev Restaurant & Foods P Ltd. vs. CPC, Bangalore 6. The SLP filed against the said decision has been dismissed by Hon‟ble SC. 7. Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd,IT APPEAL NOS. 1002 & 1034 OF 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2…

Allied Resource Management Services (India) Private Limited, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 400/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.400/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Allied Resource Management Asst. Director Of I.T., Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cpc, Bengaluru Office No.27 To 36, Sai Venkata Trade Center, 2Nd Floor, Pune Nashik Highway Bhosari, Pune – 411039 Pan: Aaccr9089D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Dated 30.06.2021 Emanating Out Of Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As „The Act‟) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit Has Erred In Disallowing Employees Contribution To Pf & Esic U/S 36(1)(V)(A) Though The Same Are Paid Before Filing Of Return Of Income.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(v)

…f PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com” Unquote 6. The SLP filed against the said decision has been dismissed by Hon‟ble SC. 7. Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, IT APPEAL NOS. 1002 & 1034 OF 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2014 as under : Quote , “ In this manner, the amendment provided by Finance Act, 2003 put on pa…

Arham Constrotech P Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 398/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.398/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Arham Constrotech Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Director Of I.T., Ground Floor, Manisha, Asha Vs Cpc, Bengaluru Nagar, Near N R Dvs Bank, Nashik Road, Nashik – 422101 Pan: Aafca7025H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Dated 27.08.2021 Emanating Out Of Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As „The Act‟) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Disallowance Of Rs. 77,300/- U/S 36(1)(Va) By Disregarding The Fact That Disallowance U/S 36(1)(Va) Is Beyond The Scope Of Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, It Is Prayed To Delete The Disallowance Of Rs.77,300/-.

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

…ited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. ITA No.398/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20 Arham Constrotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com” Unquote 6. The SLP filed against the said decision has been dismissed by Hon‟ble SC. 7. Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, IT APPEAL NOS. 1002 & 1034 OF 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2014 as under : Quote , “ In this manner, the amendment provided by Finance Act, 2003 put on pa…

Aditya Enterprises, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the assessee‟s appeals are allowed

ITA 391/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.391 & 392/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Aditya Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of S No 52/36, 52/40, Anusagar Vs Income-Tax, Cpc, Building, Near Ashish Garden, Bengaluru Kothrud, Pune – 411038 Pan: Aatfa9806D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Sathe Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: Both The Appeals Were Taken Up For Hearing Together. Ita No.391/Pun/2021 Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) For Assessment Year 2018-19. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.392/Pun/2021 Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.391/Pun/2021 Are As Under: 1. Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs.512956 To Income Of The Assessee On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Esic & Pf. As Per Section 43B These Sums Are Allowable As Deduction Though The Payments Are Made Beyond Due Date Prescribed Under Esic & Pf Act, But Paid

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 43B

…ere for A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Aditya Enterprises vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com” Unquote 7. The SLP filed against the said decision has been dismissed by Hon‟ble SC. 8. Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd,IT APPEAL NOS. 1002 & 1034 OF 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2014 as under : Quote , “ In this manner, the amendment provided by Finance Act, 2003 put on par…

Sh Muraleedharan Kalathil, Cochin vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 375/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Muraleedharan Kalathil Dcit, The Cpc, 9F Sair Sree Ram Prakash Vihar Vs Bangalore Awho, Ernakulam, Cochin - 682023 Pan: Afhpk6833P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Arjun Raj (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), (Nfac), Dated 19.08.2021 Emanating Out Of Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As „The Act‟) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

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

…f PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com” Unquote 6. The SLP filed against the said decision has been dismissed by Hon‟ble SC. 7. Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, IT APPEAL NOS. 1002 & 1034 OF 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2014 as under : Quote , “ In this manner, the amendment provided by Finance Act, 2003 put on pa…

Dnyaneshwar Keeshavrao Raghude, Paithan, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 349/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.349/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Dnyaneshwar Keshavrao Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Raghude Vs Naigaon, Post – Khandewadi, Taluka – Paithan, Dist - Aurangabad Pan: Alvpr7153B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), (Nfac), Dated 26.07.2021 Emanating Out Of Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As „The Act‟) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Act That Amendment Made In The First Proviso To The Section 43B Vide Finance Act, 2003 Regarding Allowability Of Expenditure Of Payment Of Contribution By The Employer Towards Employees Welfare Funds Before Filing Of Income Tax Return U/S 139(1) For That Previous Year Is Applicable In Case Of Payment Of Employer'S

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

…f PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com” Unquote 6. The SLP filed against the said decision has been dismissed by Hon‟ble SC. 7. Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, IT APPEAL NOS. 1002 & 1034 OF 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2014 as under : Quote , “ In this manner, the amendment provided by Finance Act, 2003 put on pa…

Supreme Equipments P Ltd, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 254/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.254/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Supreme Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru B-19, Supreme Equipment Pvt. Vs Ltd., Nice, Midc, Satpur, Nashik-422007 Pan: Aaocs5679N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), (Nfac), Dated 30.04.2021 Emanating Out Of Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As „The Act‟) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: Disallowance Under Section 36(1)(Va) In Order U/S 143(1) Of Rs.46,514/-.

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

…f PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com” Unquote ITA No.254/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 Supreme Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs.DCIT 5. The SLP filed against the said decision has been dismissed by Hon‟ble SC. 6. Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, IT APPEAL NOS. 1002 & 1034 OF 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2014 as under : Quot…

Digvijay Automobiles, Satara vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 394/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.394/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Digvijay Automobiles Cpc, Bengaluru Vimal Chambers, Shahu Chowk, Vs Satara – 415001 Pan: Aaefd0008R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Dated 23.08.2021 Emanating Out Of Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As „The Act‟) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Nfac Was Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Cpc-Bengaluru Invoking S. 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. It Appears The Cpc-Bengaluru Applied The Provisions Of S. 36(1)(Va) But The Amendment Was Made Effective From 01-4- 2021. The Disallowance Is Confirmed On The Basis Of Non- Existent Provisions. It Be Deleted.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234A

…f PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com” Unquote 6. The SLP filed against the said decision has been dismissed by Hon‟ble SC. 7. Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, IT APPEAL NOS. 1002 & 1034 OF 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2014 as under : Quote , “ In this manner, the amendment provided by Finance Act, 2003 put on pa…

Aditya Enterprises, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the assessee‟s appeals are allowed

ITA 392/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 43B

Aquarius Engineers P Ltd, Pune vs. Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 378/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.378/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Aquarius Engineers Pvt Ltd., Adit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.65, Aquarius House, Vs Off Karve Road, Sheelavihar Colony, Pune – 411038 Pan: Aacca2748L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), (Nfac), Dated 26.08.2021 Emanating Out Of Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As „The Act‟) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal:

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

…were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. ITA No.378/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 Shri Aquarius Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs.ADIT State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com” Unquote 5. The SLP filed against the said decision has been dismissed by Hon‟ble SC. 6. Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, IT APPEAL NOS. 1002 & 1034 OF 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2014 as under : Quote , “ In this manner, the amendment provided by Finance Act, 2003 put on pa…

Apex Insurance Consultant Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -3(1), New Delhi

ITA 4748/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4748/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Apex Insurance Consultant Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 54, Basement Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Ward-3(1), Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3234H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Kanav Bali, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’ NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 4748/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Apex Insurance Consultant Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 54, Basement Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Ward-3(1), Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAECA3234H Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Kanav Bali, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 08.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 12.09.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of th…

Essem Engineering Industries, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 273/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 4Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 273/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s.Essem Engineering Industries cuke The ITO Vs. O-12, Parijat, Ashok Marg Ward 6(3) Jaipur- 302 016 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAFE3749A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Mrs. Prabha Rana, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of…

Nishant Bhatnagar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 262/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mrs.PrabhaFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary

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

…v k ; d j v i h y h ; v f / k d j . k ] t;i q j U ; k ; i h B ] t;i q j IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER v k ; d j v i h y l a - @ ITA No. 262/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Nishant Bhatnagar cuke The ITO Vs. 140, Kishan Nagar Ward 1(3) Shyam Nagar, 302 019 (Raj) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACGPB 3609 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent f u / k Z k f j r h d h v k s j ls@ Assessee by : Mrs.Prabha Rana, Adv. j k t L o d h v k s j l s @ Revenue b…

Classic Aircon, Jaipur vs. DCIT CPC / ITO, WD-5(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hearing Of This Appeal.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 247/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20. cuke Classic Aircon, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. B-265, Janta Colony, Ward 5(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAFFC 0473 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Written Submission jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 24/0…

Sona Fashions Inc, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1217/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Memberassessment Year: 2018-19 Sona Fashions Inc. Vs. Ito, H 9, Mohan Coop. Industrial Ward-29(5), Estate, B1, Mathura Road, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi Pan :Aacfs7353L (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Mansoor Aiyaz Ebrahim, Chennai vs. Assistant Dirctor of Incometax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 622/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR

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

…for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation, Sec. 43B would become obsolete. The Hon’ble Court further held that these provisions were brought in as the due…

Mansoor Aiyaz Ebrahim, Chennai vs. Assistant Dirctor of Incometax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 621/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR

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

Tonglit Autogistic Private Limited, Chennai vs. Asst Director of It, CPC Income Tax Department, Banglore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 566/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh. S (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR

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