Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd.?

326 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd. (366 ITR 163), spanning 2016 to 2024.

366 ITR 163High Court2014#228 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions to welfare funds, governed by Section 36(va) and Section 2(24)(x), are deductible if paid by the due date for filing the return of income. This aligns with the retrospective application of the amendment to Section 43B, as established in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

326

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. · Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh · 366 ITR 163 · Section 36(va) · Section 43B · Alom Extrusions · employee contributions PF ESI · welfare funds deduction · retrospective amendment Section 43B · due date return filing · deductibility employee contributions · omitted second proviso 43B(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 158be section 34(1)(iv)section 36(va)section 113 section 92f section 34(1)clarificatory amendment retrospective amendment section 36(1)(iv)section 158bb section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd.

INDIYAA DISTRIBUTION NETWORK LLP,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

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

ITA 258/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Indiyaa Distribution Dy. Cit, Network Llp, 1(1), 11D, Sampat Farm, Indore. Opp.Agrawal Public बनाम/ School, Vs. Bicholi Mardana Road, Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aarfg1302N Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…il Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. Page 2 of 14 Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, Indore vs. DCIT,1(1), Indore ITA No.258/Ind/2023 A.Y : 2…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] Page 21 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 426/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 2Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…h Court in the cases of CIT Vs. State Bank Of Bikaner and Jaipur reported in 2014 363 ITR 70 Rajasthan, CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited reported in 2014 363 ITR 307 Rajasthan and CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited reported in 2014 366 ITR 163 Rajasthan, which may kindly be allowed. 4. The Assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Apropos Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- 3 SM Workforce Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 7. Grounds of appeal are against the order dated 25.11.2022 passed u/s 15…

PRADEEP KUMAR DHURVE,DURG vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 302/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 302/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pradeep Kumar Dhurve Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aanpd6067H

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 302/RPR/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pradeep Kumar Dhurve Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 PAN : AANPD6067H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hear…

M/S. KAMLA CONSTRUCTION CO.,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT-2, BHOPAL

In the result, ground no.1 of the assesse’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 16/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Kamla Construction Co. Pr. Cit-2 Kcc Main Road Bhopal Vs. Obedullaganj Dist. Raisen (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aktpp8040L Assessee By Shri Sumit Kumar Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.11.2023

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…il Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the…

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 241/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 241/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ATC Logistical Solutions Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Ltd. Amritsar Transport Co. Income tax, Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd.3981/83 1st Floor Naya Amritsar. Bazar, New Delhi. [PAN:-AABCA6200A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 04.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2023 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was f…

ON DOOR CONCEPTS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 13/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…il Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the…

ON DOOR CONCEPTS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 12/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…il Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the…

SHRI KAMLESH SEN,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT (A) NFAC , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 98/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Kamlesh Sen Nfac 55, Saluja Complex Delhi Vs. M.P. Nagar-1 Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Bejps 5672C Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 246ASection 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…il Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) Page 2 of 5 Shri Kamlesh Sen Page 3 of 5 would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by…

VISHWARANJAN PRASAD SINGH,BHOPAL vs. DCIT ,CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 24/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivishwaranjan Prasad Singh Dcit-Cpc Prop World Wide Security Org, Bangalore Vs. H 203, Baghmugalia Extension Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Acpps 7520Q Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2023

Section 139Section 143Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…il Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the…

CHANDRA SHEKHAR TIWARI,FLAT NO. B-9, D-224, TANWAR RESIDENCY, TULSI MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 101/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…earlier than the date of filing of return of income and thus the same are allowable. To this effect, the ld.AR submitted the following case laws. 1. CIT Vs SBBJ and JVVNL , 363 ITR 70 (Raj) 2. CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Udaipur (2014), 366 ITR 163 (Raj) 3. CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) 4. CIT vs SBBJ (2014) 99 DTR 131(Raj) 5. CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC) 4 Chandra Shekhar Tiwari vs ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur 6. CIT vs JVNNL 98 DTR 105 (Raj) 7. CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Udaipur, 98 DTR 109 (Raj) 8. CIT Vs Vinay Cement Lt…

ARUN WAMAN KOLI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURE

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 413/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar

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

…il Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the…

ROSHAN HOSPITAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 110/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniroshan Hospital Cpc 7-A-B, Govind Garden, Raisen Bangaluru Vs. Road, Govindpura, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aasfr 4278 B Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…il Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the…

PRADMAN ENGINEERING SERVICES P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 91/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…il Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the…

ODEX INDIA SOLUTIONS P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC , DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 147/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…il Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the…

M/S. P.A.ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT , CPC, BEGALURU

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2057/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…il Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the…

KAY SWITCGEARS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 24/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. NFAC, Delhi/C/o Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [PAN: AAACE5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No.24/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Kay Switchgears India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NFAC, Delhi/ C/o Asstt. Factory Area, Jalandhar. Commissioner of Income [PAN: AAACK9954A] Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No.14/As…

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPAY PRIVATE LIMITED ,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 23/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Showing 1–20 of 326 · Page 1 of 17

...