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

Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 121/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.120&121/LKW/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works v. The ACIT-2 Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 19, A.P. Sen Road Lucknow TAN/PAN:AABCD3687N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: These are assessee’s appeals against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, both dated 30.9…

Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 120/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.120&121/LKW/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works v. The ACIT-2 Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 19, A.P. Sen Road Lucknow TAN/PAN:AABCD3687N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: These are assessee’s appeals against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, both dated 30.9…

Bhagwanti Rubber and Allied Products Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 31/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…lowed 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 j…

Vikash Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 126/LKW/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…lowed 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 j…

M/S Saint-Gobain Indi Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 241/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

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. 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. Saint Gobain India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 240/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 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. 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…

Sk Elecgtricals, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 239/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) – 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…

Amutha, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 238/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh (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…

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 224/CHNY/2022[2018-1]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban (FCA) – 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…

Axis Carriers & Logisticas Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

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

ITA 159/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh K. MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO. 159/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) M/s. Axis Carriers & Logistics Ltd., v. DCIT 803B Kukreja palace Centralised Processing Centre Vallabh Baug Lane Income-tax Department Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai - 400075 Bengaluru PAN: AADCA9585A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rakesh K. Milwani Department by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing : 19.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.05.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the ass…

Assort Staffing Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst Dir of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO. 95/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) Assort Staffing Services Pvt. Ltd., v. ACIT Office No. 6-E/F, Rushabh Chambers Income-tax Department, CPC Off. Makwana Road, Marol Post Box No.1 Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 Electronic City Post Office Bengaluru PAN: AAOCA5060D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Poojan Mehta Department by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing : 19.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. T…

Muhammed Aftab Alam, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 19/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Muhammed Aftab Alam V. Dcit-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, Sf Colony Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acqpa5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 18.11.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Intimation U/S 154 Sent By Cpc Where By It Processed The Return Of Income Of Appellant For Ay 2019-20 At Rs.26,09,757/-.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2019-20 Muhammed Aftab Alam v. DCIT-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, SF Colony Lucknow Lucknow TAN/PAN:ACQPA5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date of hearing: 05 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 18.11.2021, for Assessment Year 2019-20, raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred both on facts and in la…

Muhammed Aftab Alam, Lucknow vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, DCIT -6, Lucknow New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 18/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Muhammed Aftab Alam V. Dcit-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, Sf Colony Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acqpa5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 18.11.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Intimation U/S 154 Sent By Cpc Where By It Processed The Return Of Income Of Appellant For Ay 2019-20 At Rs.36,47,045/-.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2018-19 Muhammed Aftab Alam v. DCIT-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, SF Colony Lucknow Lucknow TAN/PAN:ACQPA5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date of hearing: 05 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 18.11.2021, for Assessment Year 2018-19, raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred both on facts and in la…

M/S. Almech Facades Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC`, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2087/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 2087/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2018-19) M/s. Almech Facades Pvt. Ltd., v. National Faceless 113B, Hub Town Solaris Building Appeal Centre (NFAC) N.S. Phadke Marg, Andheri (E) Delhi Mumbai - 400069 PAN: AANCA3788P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shashi Bekal Department by : Shri Suresh Pariasamy Date of Hearing : 12.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against ord…

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2056/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 2056 & 2058/MUM/2021 (A.Y:2018-19 & 2019-20) M/s. P.A Zaveri v. DCIT, CPC Shop No. 5, Building No. 73 Centralized Processing Centre Income-tax Department Centrl Avenue Road Bengaluru - 560500 Chembur (E), Mumbai - 400071 PAN: AAAFP1089L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Aditya Ramchandran Department by : Shri Suresh Periasamy Date of Hearing : 12.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These…

Vinayak Hirji Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2012/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(Va)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 2012/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2017-18) Vinayak Hiraji Mhatre v. Income Tax Officer – 26(3)(4) B-10, Navsahajivan CHS Ltd., 336, 3rd Floor Shivshrushthi, Kurla (E) Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43 Mumbai - 400074 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AEEPM0882N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Suresh Pariasamy Date of Hearing : 11.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1.…

M/S. Aashia Products, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2007/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 2007/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2019-20) M/s. Aashis Products v. ADIT, CPC Plot No. 23, MIDC Bengaluru Road No. 9, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400093 PAN: AAAFA1695H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sameer G. Dalal Department by : Shri Suresh Pariasamy Date of Hearing : 11.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),…

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1986/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos. 1985 & 1986/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/s. Sincetele Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., v. Assistant/Dy.DIT, CPC Office No. 61, Mahavir Centre Post Bag No. 2 Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Electronic City Post Office Mumbai - 400703 Bangalore - 560500 PAN: AAPCS6229K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tanmay Phadke Department by : Shri Suresh Pariasamy Date of Hearing : 10.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFA…

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst/Dy/ Dir of Income Tax CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos. 1985 & 1986/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/s. Sincetele Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., v. Assistant/Dy.DIT, CPC Office No. 61, Mahavir Centre Post Bag No. 2 Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Electronic City Post Office Mumbai - 400703 Bangalore - 560500 PAN: AAPCS6229K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tanmay Phadke Department by : Shri Suresh Pariasamy Date of Hearing : 10.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFA…

Paper Recycle, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1960/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri R.D. KhonaFor Respondent: Smt Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 1960/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2019-20) M/s. Paper Recycle v. National Faceless 71, Juhu Shopping Centre Appeal Centre (NFAC) Gulmohar Road, Andheri (w) Delhi Mumbai - 400049 PAN: AAHFP7790D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R.D. Khona Department by : Smt Shreekala Pardeshi Date of Hearing : 09.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissio…