How many judgments cite CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.?

422 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd. (213 CTR 268), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 143(1)(a), Section 143(3), Section 270A, Section 28, Section 36(1)(va).

CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.

213 CTR 268Supreme Court of India2007#171 most cited

What is CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd. authority for?

Employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) if deposited by the assessee before the due date for filing the income tax return.

422

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd. · Vinay Cements SC · employees contribution PF ESI · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 2(24)(x) · belated deposit ESI EPF · deduction allowability · due date filing return · penalty Section 270A

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270A Section 28 Section 36(1)(va)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 36(1)section 36 india

Judgments citing CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.

M/S. Philips Medical Systems P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3412/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

….F. and Pension Fund respectively, it is observed that the same are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Alom’s Extrusions Limited [185 Taxman 416] and CIT –vs.- Vinay Cement Limited [213 CTR 268], wherein it was held that the employer’s/employees contribution towards Provident Fund and Pension Fund paid before the due date of filing of the return of income for the relevant year cannot be disallowed under section 43B, even if it has been paid after the due date as per relevant Acts. Respectfully following the said decision of the Hon’ble…

M/S. Hitrac Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 3726/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Joginder Singhdcit, Vs M/S Hitrac Manpower Service Pvt. Circle-2, Ltd. Gurgaon 85, Link Road, Bheem Nagar, Gurgaon, Pan-Aabch4230P Revenue Assessee M/S Hitrac Manpower Service Vs Dcit, Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2, 85, Link Road, Bheem Nagar, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Pan-Aabch4230P Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(X)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT, & SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, vs M/s Hitrac Manpower Service Pvt. Circle-2, Ltd. Gurgaon 85, Link Road, Bheem Nagar, Gurgaon, PAN-AABCH4230P Revenue Assessee M/s Hitrac Manpower Service vs DCIT, Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2, 85, Link Road, Bheem Nagar, Gurgaon Gurgaon, PAN-AABCH4230P Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Pankaj Manocha Revenue by Shri Arun Kr. Yadav Date of Hearing 01/08/2018 Date of Pronouncement 01/08/2018 ITA Nos.1163 & 3726 /Del/2015 Hitrac Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. ORDER PER JOGIN…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Hitrac Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 1163/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(X)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Avas Vikas & Infrastructure Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 486/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hearing."

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 192Section 199Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…es, before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1). This fact is therefore, not in dispute. Reliance is placed on the relevant judgments on this issue of the jurisdictional High court and the Apex court as listed below:- “CIT Vs. Vinay Cements [213 CTR 268 (SC) CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [(2014) 43 taxmann. corn 411 (Raj)]: Held "23. Thus, it is viewed that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., 8 DCIT vs. M/s Rajasthan Awas Vikas & Infrastructure Ltd. if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed…

Annapurna Studios Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Hyderabad

In the result, as pronounced in the open court, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1290/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen, DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…a) get automatically attracted when the payment is not made within the due dates prescribed there under. 3. Aggrieved, assessee contended before the CIT(A) that under identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vinay Cements Ltd., [213 CTR 268] (SC) and CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited (supra) held that Section 36(1)(va) is not applicable in the event of payment made before the due date for filing the return of income. Ld.CIT(A) rejected the contentions of assessee on the ground that Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd., [378 ITR 443] has dealt with the provisio…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Kamarhatty Company Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue (in Ground No

ITA 2080/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…breach of duty or default on the part of the assessee and for that we rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alam Extrusions Ltd. 390 ITR 306 (SC) and jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vinya Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 268 (Cal) and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.947/Kol/2012 in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2008-09, on the identical issues. Therefore as the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal cited (supra) in assessee’s own case and there is no change in facts and in…

ACIT, Alwar vs. Kalas Biotech Ltd., Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 180/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sagoni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)

Section 131Section 40

…s stated that the payments of ESI & PF were made before the due date of filing of income tax return and AO has made the addition after ignoring the applicable judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 0306 and Vinay Cement Ltd. 213 CTR 268 on this issue, which are squarely applicable in this case. Further, AO has also ignored the judgments of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur as reported in 360 ITR 70, CIT vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. 265 CTR 59, etc; came to the similar conclusion vide order dated 06, January, 2014…

DCIT, Cir -1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lexicon Auto Limited, Kolkata

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 1354/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2008-09

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2008-09 DCIT, Circle-1(1), M/s Lexicon Auto Ltd. बनाम / P-7, Chowringhee 40/B, Princep Street, V/s. Square, Room No.20, Kolkata-700 072 7th Floor, Kolkata-69 [PAN No.AAACL 4684 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arivind Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Da…

ACIT Cir 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Krystal Integrated Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 7107/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Ghosh (AR)For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…anics Chemical Ltd. (2014) 48 taxmann.com 421 Bombay, CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2015) 53 taxmann.com 141 (Bombay), CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 185 taxmann.com 416 (SC) and CIT Vs. Vinay Cement ITA. No.7107/M/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 268 (SC). The finding of the CIT(A) is hereby mentioned below for ready reference: - “7. It is seen that the AO has erred in disallowing Rs.9,45,49,826/- u/s 36(1)(va) for late payment of employer and employees contribution to provident fund. However, it is seen that the amount is actually an allow able deduction u/s 43B(b) of the I.T. Act. It is see…

Cb Doctor Ventilators Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1086/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘lh lh’ अहमदाबाद । lhlh IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी एन.के. "ब"लैया, लेखा सद"य एवं महावीर "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1086/AHD/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) CB Doctor Ventilators Pvt. ITO, बनाम/ Ltd., Ward – 1(3), Vs. 3607-3608, GIDC Estate, Ahmedabad Phase – IV, Vatva, Ahmedabad – 382 445 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCC 3410 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by…

Denis Chem Lab Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

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

ITA 2668/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasaddenis Chem Lab Ltd. Acit, बनाम/ Block No.457, Mehsana Circle, Vs. Gidc Estate, Phase – I, Mehsana. Village : Chhatral, Tal. Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd 4123 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parth Patel, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri O.P. Pathak, Joit.Cit

For Respondent: Shri O.P. Pathak, Joit.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘chchchch’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी एन.के. "ब"लैया, लेखा सद"य एवं महावीर "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Denis Chem Lab Ltd. ACIT, बनाम/ Block No.457, Mehsana Circle, Vs. GIDC Estate, Phase – I, Mehsana. Village : Chhatral, Tal. KALOL, Dist. Gandhinagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACD 4123 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parth Patel, AR अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri O.P. Pa…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Leaseforces Staffing India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6267/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kant

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6266 & 6267/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vs. M/s. Leaseforces Staffing India DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Pvt. Ltd., N-89, South City-1, Near Sector -40, Gurgaon PAN : AABCL5621N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.DR Respondent by None Date of hearing 31.10.2017 Date of pronouncement 06.11.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against orders dated 01/09/2014 passed by the Commissioner…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Leaseforces Staffing India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6266/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kant

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

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 663/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Dcit, Cicle-4(1), V/S. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. P-7, Chowringhee Pvt. Ltd. 6D, Shyamkunj, Square, Kolkata-69 12C, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 2972 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arivnd Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-10-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 23.01.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-4, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 17.12.2008 For Assessment Year 2006-07. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Revenue Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Cess On Green Leaf Of Rs.1172020/- Is An Allowable Expenditure Ignoring The Fact That Green Leaf Is Attributable To Agriculture Activities Which Is Taxable Under State Agriculture Income Tax Beyond The Purview Of Central Income Tax & As Per Rule 8 Only 40% Of The Composite Income Is Taxable Under Central Income Tax & Moreover On The Same Issue As Slp Is Pending Before Apex Court. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Well As In Law In Holding That Employees Contribution To Pf Of Rs.244399/- Is Allowed If Deposited Before Filing Of Return, Ignoring The Fact That

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Aby.T Varkey, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2006-07 DCIT, Cicle-4(1), V/s. M/s Bhubrighat Tea Co. P-7, Chowringhee Pvt. Ltd. 6D, Shyamkunj, Square, Kolkata-69 12C, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-71 [PAN No.AABCB 2972 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arivnd Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 11-10-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Prono…

Multivision Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2138/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘,Lk lh‘ अहमदाबाद । ,Lk ,Lk-,e ,Lk ,e ,e-lh ,e lhlh IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD loZJh egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa vejthr loZJh egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa vejthr flag] ys[kk lnL; ds le{kA loZJh egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa vejthr loZJh egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa vejthr flag] ys[kk lnL; ds le{kA flag] ys[kk lnL; ds le{kA flag] ys[kk lnL; ds le{kA (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2138/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/s. Multivision Pvt. L…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Foods and Inns Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection of assessee stands allowed

ITA 4577/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)

…he due date of the filing of the return under the Income-tax Act. Hence, no disallowance should have been made. For this proposition, the assessee referred to several case laws as under:- (i) CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 312 ITR 508 (ii) Vinay Cements 213 CTR 268 (SC) CO. No.87/Mum/2017 M/s.Foods and Inns Limited. (iii) Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 306 (SC) (iv) Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 320 (Del.) (v) P.M.Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Del.) (vi) CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 233 ITR 530 (Bom.) (viii) CIT v. Magus Customers Dialog Pvt.…

Magick Woods Exports P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2105/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 10BSection 10fSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 438

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘एस.एम.सी’ ‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘SMC’ ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी,लेखा सद"य केसम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2105/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Vs The DCIT, M/s. Magick Woods Exports P Ltd., C/o. S. Sridhar, Advocate, Salary Circle III, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai 1st Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. PAN: AADCM6228N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri S. Sridhar & Sriraman, अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by Advocates : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kuma…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Bevrages Corporation Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1062/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Mar 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA)For Respondent: Shri D.S. Kothari (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r :- “ 6.3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 166/JP/2012 by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vinay Cement, 213 CTR 268 (SC) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has also decided this issue in favour of the assessee in the cases of Jaipur Vidhyut Vithran Nigam Ltd., 265 CTR 62 (Raj.) and CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). In the light of above facts, we do not find any reason to inte…

Reliance Lifestyle Holdings Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6797/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…t is not necessary that a provision should be made in the account so as to be entitled to deduction of an amount, which is paid during the year. The issue of deduction on actual payment has been held to be proper in the case of CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 268 (SC); CfT v. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (2010) 1 SCC 489(SC); CIT v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 729 (SC), Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (2004) ~66 ITR 99 (SC) and CIT v. Udaipur Distilleries Co. Ltd. (2009) 314 ITR 188 (SC). In view of the above, the disallowance of Rs. 36,40,709/ - made by the AO” 10. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1196/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri M. Murugaboopathy, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R.K.V. Sundar, Advocate

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

…e has to necessarily deposit the employees’ contribution within the due date provided under the provisions of 4 I.T.A. No.1196/Mds/16 ESI Act and PF Act. This Tribunal finds that this issue was considered by the Apex Court in CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 268. The Apex Court found that both employees’ contribution and employer’s contribution have to be deposited within the due date for filing of the return under Section 139(1) of the Act, therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 6. In the result, the appe…