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

366 ITR 163High Court2014#234 most cited

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

Deduction for employee contributions to provident fund and other funds is disallowed if not paid by the due date of filing the return of income, particularly when Section 2(24)(x) and Section 36(1)(va) are considered. The omission of the second proviso to Section 43B(b) does not negate this disallowance.

326

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd. · section 2(24)(x) · section 36(1)(va) · section 43B · employee contribution · provident fund · deduction disallowed · due date of return

Issues it is cited on

section 158besection 34(1)(iv)section 36(va)section 113section 92fsection 34(1)clarificatory amendmentretrospective amendmentsection 36(1)(iv)section 158bbsection 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)

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

Venus Rubbers, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 146/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI,…

Avan Global Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC/1718/U6/1957321506, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 145/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

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

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI,…

Raksha Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 14/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Natrajan (Advocate) & Mrs. RFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI,…

The Madras Silks India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Tirupur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 134/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI,…

Vaiyapuri Venkatasubramanian, Thiruppur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 121/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI,…

M/S Imperial Granites Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 104/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI,…

M/S Gbr Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward2(2), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 103/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI,…

M/S Rane Brake Lining Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 101/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate) -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 43BSection 44A

…r); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI,…

Amazing Export Corporation, Palladam vs. DCIT, CPC, Benguluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 100/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 160/217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 167 (Punj. & Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI,…

Rameshwar Rai, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer -2, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 75/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Rameshwar Rai V. The Ito-2 5, Civil Lines Bareilly Opp. Rohila Motel Bareilly Tan/Pan:Afypr0788R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Written Submission By The Assessee. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 5.8.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Id. Cit (Appeals) (Nfac) Has Grossly Erred On Facts & Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3,37,008/- Made By The A.O. On A/C Of Employee'S Contribution Of Esi & P.F. Being Late Payment While It Has Been Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return, After Ignoring The Facts & Law As Laid Down By Hon'Ble Allahabad High Court Which Is A Jurisdictional High Court. 2. While Confirming The Addition The Id. Cit (A) Has Grossly Erred In Applying The Case Laws Of Various High Courts When The Law Laid Down By Jurisdictional High Court Was Already Available & Hon'Ble Supreme Court Had Already Dismissed Slp Filed By Deptt. Against The Order Of Rajasthan High Court. 3. The Addition Further Suffers From An Illegality Wherein The A.O. Has Erred In Making The Adjustments In Returned

For Appellant: Written submission by the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 143Section 234

…eme Court had no occasion to consider deduction with reference to Section 36(1)(va). For the same reason Gujrat High Court dissented with the judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) Page 7 of 17 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka H…

Ultra Value, Lucknow vs. ITO (1)(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 109/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ultra Value V. The Ito (1)(1) C-1619/12, Rajajipuram Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaefu0694G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 21.9.2021 For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Income Returned Should Have Been Accepted. 2. That Application Filed U/S 154 Should Have Been Accepted. 3. The Addition Made By Learned Lower Court Was Not Within The Preview Of Adjustments Which Could Be Made U/S 143(1)(A). 4. That In The Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case Learned Lower Court Erred In Holding That Amendment Made To Section 36(1)(Va) By Finance Act, 2021 Were Retrospective In Nature. 5. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Made Of Page 2 Of 17

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Seth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…eme Court had no occasion to consider deduction with reference to Section 36(1)(va). For the same reason Gujrat High Court dissented with the judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) Page 7 of 17 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka H…

Jagmini Micro Knit Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 98/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Jagmani Micro Knit Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 2, Sarvodaya Nagar Circle 2(1)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaach3405B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 04 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…eme Court had no occasion to consider deduction with reference to Section 36(1)(va). For the same reason Gujrat High Court dissented with the judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an…

Amit Singh, Bhiwadi (Alwar) vs. DCIT, CPC- Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)

…I.T. Act, 1961, in view of binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the cases of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur reported in 2014 363 ITR 70 Rajasthan, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited reported in 2014 366 ITR 163 Rajasthan, which may kindly be allowed. 3. That the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in holding that the amendments made in the Finance Act, 2021 are retrospective in nature. 4. That the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi as well ld. AO has erred on facts and in law not provided last opportunity to the appellant to explain its case and…

Transindia Nonwovens Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 267/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri B.P.Mundra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 24Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 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. 267/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 DCIT, cuke Transindia Nonwovens Private Limited P-47 P-47 Raj Angan Society NRI Colony, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru. Sec. 24, Jaipur, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur 302033. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACF 5802 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assess…

Amba Tech Engineering, Jaipur vs. ITO, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)

…I.T. Act, 1961, in view of binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the cases of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur reported in 2014 363 ITR 70 Rajasthan, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited reported in 2014 366 ITR 163 Rajasthan, which may kindly be allowed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant regarding charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of the act. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has grossly erre…

Vhs Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1676/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1675 & 1676/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. VHS Enterprises, Vs. ITO, A-89, Malviya Nagar, Ward-29(1), South Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAFFV4441D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CA Respondent by Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.DR Date of hearing 28.03.2022 Date of pronouncement 28.03.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are against separate orders dated 17.10.2019 and 06.05.2020 of Natio…

Vhs Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1675/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1675 & 1676/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. VHS Enterprises, Vs. ITO, A-89, Malviya Nagar, Ward-29(1), South Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAFFV4441D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CA Respondent by Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.DR Date of hearing 28.03.2022 Date of pronouncement 28.03.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are against separate orders dated 17.10.2019 and 06.05.2020 of Natio…

Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., Agra vs. Jurisdictional Officer, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 62/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…deduction with reference to Section 36(1)(va). For the same reason Gujarat High Court dissented with the judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur 25 ITA No. 114/Agra/2021 & Others (58) DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167 , Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. NipsoPloyfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 1. Karnataka High Court had an…

Karam Udhog, Agra vs. J.A.O., Dy. CIT.., Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 112/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…deduction with reference to Section 36(1)(va). For the same reason Gujarat High Court dissented with the judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur 25 ITA No. 114/Agra/2021 & Others (58) DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167 , Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. NipsoPloyfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 1. Karnataka High Court had an…

Prem Motors Private Limited, Gwalior vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, DCIT/ACIT, Circle1(1), Gwalior

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 100/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…deduction with reference to Section 36(1)(va). For the same reason Gujarat High Court dissented with the judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Udaipur 25 ITA No. 114/Agra/2021 & Others (58) DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167 , Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. NipsoPloyfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 1. Karnataka High Court had an…