CIT v. Taxtool

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…9 DTR 131 2. CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 16 Ocean Exim India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 3. CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163 4. Principal commission of Income –Tax v/s Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj.) 5. Income Tax vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj) iv. DCIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. the ITAT Jaipur Bench ‘B’ ITA No. 1287/JP/2019 Jan 18, 2021 (2021) 61CCH 0057 Jaipur Trib v. So your honour the impugned ESI/PF disallowance is requested to order to delete the addition. Kindly allow the assessee’…

BIKANER ENGINEERING WORKS,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

…d. (Raj. H.C. dated 15-02-2018) 3. CIT vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, 99 DTR 131 (Raj) BIKANEER ENGINEERING WORKS VS ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 4. CIT vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 (Raj.) 5. Pr. CIT vs Rajasthan State Seed Corp. Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 267 (Raj) 6. ITO vs SBBJ (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj) 7. DCIT vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur Bench ITA No. 1287/JP/2019 dated 18-01-2021 – 61 CCH 0057 (Jpr. Trib) 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and also relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v…

SHIIV VEG PRO PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…td. vs ITO in ITA No. 1184- JP-2018 vide order dated 18-03-2019, the Hon'ble Tribunal held as under: "Thus, it is clear that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has followed the earlier decisions in case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Limited 386 ITR 267 as well as decision in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra). All these decisions which were allowed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court are in favour of the assessee however, in the conclusion in para 6 there is a typographical mistake wherein it is stated "these issues decided in favour of the Department and against the as…

TRANSINDIA NONWOVENS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

…t • CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 • CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 • CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163 • Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax v/s Rajasthan state Seed Corporation Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj) • Income Tax vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj) • Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited in the ITAT Jaipur Bench “B” ITA No. 1287/JP/2019 Jan 18, 2021 (2021) 61 CCH 0057 Jaipur Trib. 6. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) also contended that the amendment brought in by the Fina…

SONI HOSPITALS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…e Hon’ble High Court has considered this issue in para 4 to 6 as under:- “4. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the same is now covered by the decisions of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s Rajasthan state seed Corporation Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj) wherein it has been held as under:- “In so far as the expenditure incurred on State Renewal Fund is concerned, the said expenditure also goes to show that the renewal fund was set up by the State Government and was created with the object of providing a safety net for the workers likely to be effected by restricting in the State Public Ent…

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1287/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2016-17 D.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Vs. Circle-6, Limited, Jaipur. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj 6373 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Verma (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : P.C. Parwal (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 03/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 6,88,83,063/- Made For Depositing The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Beyond The Prescribed Time Limited Provided In The Respective Acts. 2. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Holding That The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Are Governed By The Provisions Of Section 43B & Not By Section 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.”

…ssessee. It will be open for the department to recover the amount if the decision is in their favour." Thus, it is clear that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has followed the earlier decisions in case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Limited 386 ITR 267 as well as decision in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra). All these decisions which were allowed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court are in favour of the assessee however, in the conclusion in para 6 there is a typographical mistake wherein it is stated "these issues decided in favour of the Department and against the as…

M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…d that when the rate of tax remained the same in the year under consideration and in the preceding 6 ITA No. 213/JP/2020. Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd., Jaipur. year, then there is no revenue effect. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble 386 ITR 267 (Raj.). 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee himself has admitted the fact that these are prior period expenses not pertaining to the year under consideration. The AO has already allowed the major part of the expenditures where the explanation of the assessee was reasonable as the bills of the contractors were appro…

M/S, FORTE FOLIAGE PVT. LTD, 217, LAXMI COMPLEX, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

…e Hon’ble High Court has considered this issue in para 4 to 6 as under:- “4. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the same is now covered by the decisions of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s Rajasthan state seed Corporation Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj) wherein it has been held as under:- “In so far as the expenditure incurred on State Renewal Fund is concerned, the said expenditure also goes to show that the renewal fund was set up by the State Government and was 3 M/s Forte Foliage Pvt. Ltd. created with the object of providing a safety net for the workers likely to be effected by restr…

M/S JAIPUR STOCK SECURITIES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

…as under:- “4. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the same is now covered by the decisions of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s 3 M/s Jaipur Stock Securities Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ACIT, Jaipur Rajasthan state seed Corporation Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj) wherein it has been held as under:- “In so far as the expenditure incurred on State Renewal Fund is concerned, the said expenditure also goes to show that the renewal fund was set up by the State Government and was created with the object of providing a safety net for the workers likely to be effected by restricting in the State Public Ente…

OM METALS AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…e Hon’ble High Court has considered this issue in para 4 to 6 as under:- “4. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the same is now covered by the decisions of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s Rajasthan state seed Corporation Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj) wherein it has been held as under:- “In so far as the expenditure incurred on State Renewal Fund is concerned, the said expenditure also goes to show that the renewal fund was set up by the State Government and was created with the object of providing a safety net for the workers likely to be effected by restricting in the State Public Ente…

M/S GOSIL EXPORTS P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

…Hon’ble High Court has considered this issue in para 4 to 6 as under:- “4. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the same is now covered by the decisions of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s Rajasthan state seed Corporation Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj) wherein it has been held as under:- “In so far as the expenditure incurred on State Renewal Fund is concerned, the said expenditure also goes to show that the 3 Gosil Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT renewal fund was set up by the State Government and was created with the object of providing a safety net for the workers likely to be effected by…

M/S K.S. CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

…Hon’ble High Court has considered this issue in para 4 to 6 as under:- “4. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the same is now covered by the decisions of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income- Tax V/s Rajasthan state seed Corporation Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj) wherein it has been held as under:- “In so far as the expenditure incurred on State Renewal Fund is concerned, the said expenditure also goes to show that the renewal fund was set up by the State Government and was created with the object of providing a safety net for the workers likely to be effected by restricting in the State Public Ent…

M/S. RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

…dated 18.08.2017. It was further submitted that the issue is also covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd. in DBIT Appeal No.4/2016 dated 29.04.2016 reported in 386 ITR 267. In view of same, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and thus the ground of the department be dismissed. 3. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the decision of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 202/JP/2015 dated 18.08.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the Coordinate Bench has held as under:- “5. In D.B Appeal No. 4/2006 dated 29.04.20…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

…dated 18.08.2017. It was further submitted that the issue is also covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd. in DBIT Appeal No.4/2016 dated 29.04.2016 reported in 386 ITR 267. In view of same, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and thus the ground of the department be dismissed. 3. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the decision of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 202/JP/2015 dated 18.08.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the Coordinate Bench has held as under:- “5. In D.B Appeal No. 4/2006 dated 29.04.20…

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

…assessed to tax in the year under consideration, the prior period expenditure claimed by the assesse cannot be disallowed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 267 wherein it was held as under: “Insofar as the prior period expenses is concerned a finding of fact has been recorded by the Appellate Authorities that approval for payment of the said expenditure was given during the year under appeal therefore 4 M/s Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITO the liability crystalli…

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

…ssee’s own case for AY 2005-06 and AY 2007-08 and upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 8.3 It was further submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 267 where it is held as under: “Insofar as the expenditure incurred on State Renewal Fund is concerned, said expenditure also goes to show that the renewal fund was set up by the State Government and was created with the object of providing a safety net for the workers likely to be effected by restricting in the State Public Enterprise and that a fin…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) and ground of appeal taken by the Revenue is dismissed

…n Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 233/JP/2009 order 3 Rajasthan Renewal Energy Corpn. Ltd., Jaipur. dated 25.05.2009 for A.Y. 2009-10 which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd reported in 386 ITR 267. 4. The relevant finding of the ld CIT(A) where he has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd is reproduced as under: “2.3.1 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submission of the appellant. The facts of this issue are similar to the facts in the case of M/s Raj…

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

…e order of the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. We further note that the Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in case of Pr. ITA No. 311 & 420/JP/2014 323/JP/2016, CO. No. 07/JP/2016 313& 421/JP/14, 93,207,94& 208/JP/2015 CIT vs. Rajasthan state Seed Corporation Ltd. 386 ITR 267 has also decided this issue an identical issue in favour of the assessee. 13. Ground No. 3 is regarding disallowance made by the AO in respect of contribution to State Renewal Fund was allowed by the ld. CIT(A). 14. We have heard ld. DR as well as AR and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset we note that an identical issue…