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 145ASection 234BSection 234CSection 37(1)Section 43BSection 10(23C)Section 11
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

Ms Labels, Tiruppur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 362/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Senthil Kumar (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (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…

Sapphire Clothing Company (I) Pvt. Limited, Tiruppur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 361/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Senthil Kumar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (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…

Ravindran, Tenkasi vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 359/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – 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…

M/S Paypal India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 338/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Aashish (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – 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…

M/S. Formoplastic Controls Private Ilimited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 334/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Singh Rathore (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. 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…

Super Rubber Mix, Madurai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 1, Madurai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 323/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.T. Hariharan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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…

Arun Polymers, Madurai vs. ACIT Non Corpcircle 1, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 322/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.T. Hariharan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 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…

Deccan Industries, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 320/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjunraj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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…

The Ktm Jewellery Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporae Circle-2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 319/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 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…

A K Facility Services Private Limited, Thiruporrur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

Appeal is allowed

ITA 309/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Roopeswari R. (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)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…

Dr Axion India Private Limited, Thiruvallur vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 302/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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…

Sri Ramesh Colour Match Works, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 300/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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…

Sri Maharaj Colour Match Works, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 299/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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…

Sri Ramesh Sparklers Facory, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 298/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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…

M/S Saravana Selfavathnam Retail Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT.CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.288/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Sarvana Selvarathnam Retail Adit बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Cpc, No.14, Ranganathan Street, T. Nagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Chennai – 600 017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs-2680-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-06-2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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…

M/S Saravana Selvarathnam Trading & Manufacturing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Benguluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 287/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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…

M/S Saravana Selvarathnam Trading & Manufacturing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Benguluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 286/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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…

M/S Punniyamoorthy Pillai Department Store, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Circle(OSD)-1, Trichy

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 285/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 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…

Gosil Exports Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle -I, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Return.’’

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…359/JP/2006, ITA No.358/JP/2006 & ITA No.825/JP/2008 dt.30/04/2010, 30/04/2010 & 24/08/2009 respectively for the Assessment Year 2002-03, 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively and decision Hon Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70, CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 163. The facts and circumstance are exactly same as in the appellant case. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court I n the case of [2014] CIT v.State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 43 taxmann.com 11 (Raj), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High court ha…

United Coffee House, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-52(4), Delhi

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

ITA 792/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. United Coffee House, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-15, Connaught Place, Ward-52(4), Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaafu1260G (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…