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

Suman Solanki, Jaipur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH-A,VC, JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 124/JP/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19. cuke Suman Solanki The DCIT, CPC / Vs. S-12, Lav Kush Nagar-IInd, The Income Tax Officer, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Fatak, Ward 6(4), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AGCPS 3462 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya (Advoca…

Asm Marketing Private Limited, Chennai vs. Aoc.Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 144/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Ganesh Babu (FCA) – 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…

Asm Marketing Private Limited, Chennai vs. Aoc.Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 143/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Ganesh Babu (FCA) – 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…

Raman & Weil Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1946/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Surendra NijsureFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 1946/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2017-18) M/s. Raman & Weil Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT – CPC 35-36, Mittal chamber Bangalore Opp. INOX Theatre Karnataka Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACR5065M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Surendra Nijsure Department by : Shri T. Shankar Date of Hearing : 26.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 12.05.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Comm…

Dolcas Botanosys Pvt. Ltd. Bikaner, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore/ACIT, C-1 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…t of disallowance for ESI / PF. The same is allowable under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 and it was so held to be allowable in the binding decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan in CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70, CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 and CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 163. 8 M/s. Dolcas Botanosys Pvt. Ltd. vs ADIT, CPC, Banglore/ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur 6. We respectfully draw your honour’s kind attention towards the following decisions directly on this issue : a. CIT Vs. State Bank of B…

Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, Sonebhadra vs. Dy. CIT, (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI. RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, v. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. CPC Bangalore PAN- AFVPM5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 09.05.2022 Date of pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.08.2021 of…

Ticomp Heels Private Limited, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 86/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

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…

Bloom Systems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2348/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 2348, 2393 & 2394/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2017-18) & ITA.Nos. 2403 & 2404/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/s. Bloom Systems Pvt. Ltd., v. Income Tax Officer – 6(1)(4) 504, Sai Sharan, N.C. Kelkar Road 503, 5th Floor Dadar (W), Mumbai - 400028 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAECB3365Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay R. Singh Department by : Shri Love Kumar Date of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.…

Lalit Kumar Arora, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cr-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 121/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Furnishing The Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. When The Matter Was Taken To The Ld. Cit(A) The Said Disallowance Was Sustained.

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 121/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 cuke ADIT, CPC, Lalit Kumar Arora C-60 C-60, Shyam Nagar, Sodala, Vs. Bengaluru./ ACIT, Jaipur. Circle-2, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABCPA6868M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None (Written Submission) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue…

Steel Bird International, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 63, New Delhi

ITA 1573/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1573/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Steel Bird International, Vs Jcit, 2E/3, Jhandewalan Extn., Range-63, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfs7296K Assessee By : Sh. Vikas Katyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Katyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member ITA No. 1573/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Steel Bird International, Vs JCIT, 2E/3, Jhandewalan Extn., Range-63, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABFS7296K Assessee by : Sh. Vikas Katyal, CA Revenue by : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-20, New D…

Nirmal Kumar Bardiya, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 260/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d the employees contribution to ESI and EPF before the due date of filing of return under section 139 (1), then the same cannot be disallowed in view of the binding precedent of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. SBBJ, 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance by purportedly following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court dated 13th March, 2018 in case of Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. in DBIT Appeal Nos. 10-12/2018. It is pertinent to note that even the said decision is not against the assessee but there is a typograp…

Rmc Gems India Ltd, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d the employees contribution to ESI and EPF before the due date of filing of return under section 139 (1), then the same cannot be disallowed in view of the binding precedent of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. SBBJ, 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance by purportedly following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court dated 13th 6 RMC Gems India Ltd. vs ADIT CPC,Bengaluru March, 2018 in case of Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. in DBIT Appeal Nos. 10-12/2018. It is pertinent to note that even the said decision is no…

Orient Craft Ltd., Delhi vs. Asst. DIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 477/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 477/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Orient Craft Ltd., Vs Asstt. Dit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Cpc, D-28, South Extension, Bangalore Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0068M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member ITA No. 477/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Orient Craft Ltd., Vs Asstt. DIT, C/o M/s RRA TaxIndia, CPC, D-28, South Extension, Bangalore Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACO0068M Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee…

Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1958/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1958 & 1959/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2017-18 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Mr.R.D. Khona.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Love Kumar.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1958 & 1959/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Pravin Electricals Pvt Vs CIT (A), National Ltd., Faceless Appeal E-5/2, 1st Floor, Centre. Highland Park, Jai Delhi Shastri Nagar, Mulund Colony, Mulund (W), Mumbai - 400082 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. :AABCP9664P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.R.D. Khona.AR Respondent by : Mr. Love Kumar.DR Date of Hearing 26.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE…

Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Astt. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore [DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai]

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1838/MUM/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhemkay Facilities Vs. Acit (Cpc), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [Dcit Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Emkay Facilities Vs. ACIT (CPC), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [DCIT Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCE0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order…

M/S Mahavir Paints and Adhesives Pvt.Ltd, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 20/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Mahavir Paints & V. The Income Tax Officer Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Ward 2(3)(3) 123/760-D, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacm9521B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 20.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has .Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Amount Paid Towards Esic & Epf Of The Employees, Which Amount Being Allowable Both On The Basis Of Interpretation Of The Statute & On The Basis Of The Decision Of The Apex Court In The, Case Of Allom Extrusion 319 Ir 306 (Sc). Pr. Cit Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. & The Allahabad High Court In The Case Of Shagun Foundry Private Limited Vs. Cit ,Ita No. .87 Of 20061 'The Same Be Allowed. 2. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Esic & Epf, Being A Business Expenditure Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Having Been 'Paid Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income, The Same Being An Allowable Business

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s Mahavir Paints and v. The Income Tax Officer Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Ward 2(3)(3) 123/760-D, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:AAACM9521B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 09 03 2022 Date of pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 20.12.2021, for Assessment Year 2019-20, raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Beca…

M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd, Hazratganj vs. The ACIT -5, Lucknow New

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

ITA 2/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 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 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1 & 2/LKW/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Premier Car Sales Ltd. v. The ACIT 9, Premier Building Lucknow Shahnajaf Road Hazratganj, Lucknow TAN/PAN:AABCP5806H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 09 03 2022 Date of pronouncement: 27 04 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,…

M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd, Hazratgang vs. The ACIT -5, Lucknow New

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

ITA 1/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 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 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1 & 2/LKW/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Premier Car Sales Ltd. v. The ACIT 9, Premier Building Lucknow Shahnajaf Road Hazratganj, Lucknow TAN/PAN:AABCP5806H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 09 03 2022 Date of pronouncement: 27 04 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,…

Mr. Shitij Dhawan, Kanpur vs. The Assessing Officer, Special Range

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Shitij Dhawan v. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:ACQPD3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 09 03 2022 Date of pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 17.11.2021, for Assessment Year 2018-19, raising the f…

Taj Granites Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 80/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…that this issue is settled in favour of the assesseee by the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and ITAT, which are produced as under:- “1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited 265 CTR 62 (Raj.). 2. VIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). 3. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 (Delhi H.C.) 4. CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Delhi (HC) 5. ACIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 20 taxmann.com 334 6. Universal Precision Screws vs. ACIT 69 taxmann.com 185 7. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 84 taxmann.com (SC) 10. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) also contended that the…