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

Dushyant Kumar Tyagi, G1-1103 R.I.A vs. DCIT CPC Bengaluru, Bhiwadi

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

…n High Court in the cases of CIT vs State Bank of Bikaner & 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 Dughdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. 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. DCIT, CPC is not justified in disallowing due to non-deduction of TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Even otherw…

Karam Vir Yadav, Alwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 96/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Vir Yadav Cuke Cit(A), Vs. M/S Shashank Engg. Works, Nfac. 191, M.I.A., Alwar-301001. Pan No.: Aabpy 1852 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri J.P. Garg (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 28/06/2021 For The A.Y. 2019-20. Following Ground Has Been Taken By The Assessee: “ On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Returned Income While Processing Of Income Tax Return, U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act Amounting Rs. 1,14,148/- For Delay In Deposit Of Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi On Due Date Of The Respective Act Which Is Unjustified & Unlawful As It Was Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing It Return U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. This Was Also Allowed By Hon’Ble Itat, Jaipur & Hon’Ble High Court Of Rajasthan, Hon’Ble Itat Of 2

…n 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 18. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak 8 ITA 96/JP/2021_ Karam Vir Yadav vs. ACIT(A) NFAC Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corportation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the return of income under section 139(1), the same cannot be disa…

Shashi Rajawat, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 81/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shashi Rajawat, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 58, Ambabari Shopping Centre, Ward 4(2), Ambabari, Jaipur-302023. Jaipur Pan No.: Abupr 2195 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Rathore (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23/07/2021 For The A.Y. 2018-19. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Disallowing The Pf & Esi Payments Amounting To Rs. 97,290/- Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return During The Year. 2. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts. 3. That The Petitioner Craves To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Due Date.”

…er Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 18. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages 8 ITA 81/JP/2021_ Shashi Rajawat Vs ITO Corportation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the return of income unde…

M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 76/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. 602, Elements Mall, Dcm, Ajmer Cpc, Road, Jaipur. Bengaluru. Pan No.: Aabfb 3002 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 29/06/2021 For The A.Y. 2018-19. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 12,50,413/- U/S 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf & Esi. She Has Further Erred In Making The Addition By Not Following The Decision Of Jurisdictional High Court. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

…er Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 18. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages 8 ITA 76/JP/2021_ M/s Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat Vs DCIT Corporation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the return…

Dhabriya Polywood Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT-C-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…vs. ADIT 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 18. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corportation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the return of income under section 139(1), the same cannot be disa…

K.P. Airtech, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…ot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT 18. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corportation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the return of income under section 139(1), the same cannot be disa…

K.P. Airtech, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…ot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT 18. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corportation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the return of income under section 139(1), the same cannot be disa…

Sohan Lal Tambi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…r Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 14. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163, CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corportation Limited (supra) and PCIT vs Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the return of income under section 139(1), the same cannot be disa…

Soni Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…accordingly, dismissed. (d) CIT Vs. M/s Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) (e) CIT Vs Vinay Cement Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd 363 ITR 307 (Raj) (g) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) (h) CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) In view of above, your honours are therefore humbly requested to please delete the addition. Ground No. 2- Disallowance of Rs.150279/- sustained being expenses relating to earlier years. Facts and Submissions – (i) There remains some bills of expenses under dispute at the year…

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.”

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE 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…