CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd.

242 ITR 114High Court2000#366 most cited

What is CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund or ESI, are deductible under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act if paid before the due date for filing the return of income, even if paid after the due date specified in the respective welfare fund statute.

238

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. · 242 ITR 114 · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · employee contribution deduction · provident fund · ESI · payment due date · return filing date · welfare fund

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 36(1)section 43section 36india

Judgments citing CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd.

Airtec Systems, Coimbatore vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 493/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

Airtec Systems, Coimbatore vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 492/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

Bhupendra Nath Pandey, Varanasi vs. ACIT, R - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 31/VNS/2021[2018-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2016

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Nath Pandey Assistant Director Of Income 6-159/27, Kashi Enclave V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Colony, Pahadiya Sarnath, Processing Center , Varanasi-221007, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Acit, Range-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Ajfpp1273J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak K Gujarati, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1-4- 2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) a…

Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Ltd., Varanasi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 29/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1-4- 2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) a…

Lawkush Sharma, Sonebhadra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (5), Sonebhadra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 23/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K.R.Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1-4- 2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) a…

M/S Rugs Mart, Varanasi vs. DCIT, Circle - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

ITA 21/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.N.Jaiswal,AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1-4- 2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) a…

M/S.Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 274/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 13.05.2022
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 90

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

M/S.Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 273/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 13.05.2022
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 90

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

Hipower Support Centre LLP, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 103/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Sushen Srivathsan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 Hipower Support Centre LLP, Vs. The Asst. Director of Income-tax 92/1B, Electronics City Phase 1, (CPC), Konappana Agrahar, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 100. PAN – AAJFH 9654 E. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sushen Srivathsan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 12.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This assessee's appeal for A.Y.…

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

…George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1-4-2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) an…

Emson Tools Mfg. Corpn. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT/DCIT- 1, Ludhiana

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

ITA 100/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 May 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 23(4)

…velopments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others…

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…

DCIT CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Eversendai Construction Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 965/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.965/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eversendai Construction Private Limited, No. 1 & 2, The Lords, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Guindy, Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 032. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacce2174N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 09.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 9 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 41(1)

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

M/S Longowalia Yarns Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Central Cirle -1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 87/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Filing Of The Return.

For Appellant: None (Application Rejected)For Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs C…

Neelkanth Infertility and Ivf Hospital, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, CC-1, Gurgaon

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 453/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 79 & 80/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 cuke Taj Granites Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, B-307(A), Road No. 14 VKI Area, Vs. CPC, Jaipur. Bengaluru. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACT 6785 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 311/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-1…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 79/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 79 & 80/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 cuke Taj Granites Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, B-307(A), Road No. 14 VKI Area, Vs. CPC, Jaipur. Bengaluru. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACT 6785 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 311/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-1…

Vyona Logistics Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 117/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary ( JCIT) a
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,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 117/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Vyona Logistics Private Limited ITO, B 525B, Road No. 6, VKI Area, Vs. Ward-4(2), Jaipur-302013. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCV 2515 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 116/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-…

Alfamax Packaging Solutions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 116/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary ( JCIT) a
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,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 117/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Vyona Logistics Private Limited ITO, B 525B, Road No. 6, VKI Area, Vs. Ward-4(2), Jaipur-302013. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCV 2515 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 116/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-…

Rajesh Motors (Auto) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 311/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 79 & 80/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 cuke Taj Granites Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, B-307(A), Road No. 14 VKI Area, Vs. CPC, Jaipur. Bengaluru. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACT 6785 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 311/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-1…