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#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 366,314 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 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.

M/S Dreamax Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 145(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, no disallowance is warranted in terms of following judicial pronouncements. (i) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 163 (Raj) (ii) CIT Vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited [2014] 49 taxmann.com 540 (Rajasthan) (iv) Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 224 ITR 677 (SC); 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (v) 2015 (1) TMI 974 – Gujarat high court in the case of CIT V/s Noble Detective & Secu…

M/S, Forte Foliage Pvt. Ltd, 217, Laxmi Complex, M.I. Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 617/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: The End Of The Financial Year Itself & Therefore, The Payment Was Made Much Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 37(1)

…e jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 as well as decision in case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 and in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) though has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble High Court however, disallowance made by the AO are sustained as he misunderstood the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. M/s Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited in DB ITA No. 10,11 & 12/2018 dated 13.03.2018. In…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Jk International, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

ITA 716/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar,, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10ASection 115BSection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] 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. 716, 717 & 718/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 20010-11 to 2012-13 cuke M/s. J.K. International The DCIT Central Circle-2 Vs. F-29, SEZ-II, Sitapura, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFJ 5334 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Varinder Mehta, (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Ass…

Khimji K.D. Sons Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 269/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.269/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Khimji K.D. Sons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Plot No.621/A, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pin-751007 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabck 3660 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Bivek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK श्री चन्द्र मोहन गगग, न्द्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री एऱ.ऩी.साहु, ऱेखा सदस्य के समऺ । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.269/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Khimji K.D. Sons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Plot No.621/A, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar PIN-751007 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN No. : AABCK 3660 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Bivek Mohanty, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Subhe…

Milind Gupta, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is partly

ITA 382/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Jagabandhu Sahu/Goutam Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.382 & 383/CTK/2017 Assessment Years : 2031-14 & 2014-15 Milind Gupta,N-2/160, IRC Vs. ITO, Ward 5(2), Bhubaneswar Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAUPG 8639 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jagabandhu Sahu/Goutam Sahu, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR Date of Hearing : 08/08/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27/09/ 2019 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders both d…

M/S Jaipur Stock Securities Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 992/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. Axis Motors Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 289/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…I.T.A. No.289/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.289/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 M/s Axis Motors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy.C.I.T.-6, 127W-1, 68-69, Saket Nagar, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:AAHCA 0208 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C. A. Respondent by Smt. Alka Singh, D.R. Date of hearing 29/07/2019 Date of pronouncement 31/07/2019 O R D E R This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 07/03/2019 pertaining to assessment…

Sanghvi Diamond Mfg. Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is set aside for statistical purpose

ITA 168/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Sanghvi Diamonds Mfg. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 103 To 113, Sanghvi Building, Op. Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. Prannat Hospital, Ved Road, Surat. [Pan: Aadcs 4321 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Sanghvi Diamonds Mfg. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 103 To 113, Sanghvi Building, Op. Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. Prannat Hospital, Ved Road, Surat. [Pan: Aadcs 4321 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 014Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…: [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karn) : July 3, 2007 CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises Rajasthan High Court : [2014] 363 ITR 307 :January 6, 2014 CIT, Jaipur-II, Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nighm Ltd. Rajasthan High Court :[2014] 366 ITR 163 : May 13, 2013 CIT, Udaipur Vs. M/s.Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Udaipur Rajasthan High Court [2014] 363 ITR 70 : January 6, 2014 CIT VS. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Rajasthan High Court : August 4, 2016 CIT, Jaipur-2 Vs. M/s.Rajasthan State Befverages Corpn. Ltd.,” 6. She reques…

Om Metals Auto Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1315/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Maheshwari (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)

…e jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 as well as decision in case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 and in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163. 8. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) though has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble High Court however, disallowance made by the AO are sustained as he misunderstood the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. M/s Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited in DB ITA No. 10,11 & 12/2018 dated 13.03.2018.…

M/S Gosil Exports P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1064/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date Of Submission Of Return U/S 139(1).” 2 Gosil Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Shambhu Lal Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Anuradha (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1064/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 cuke Gosil Exports Pvt. Ltd. The ACIT, Vs. E-70, EPIP, Gems and Jewellery Zone, Circle-1 Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACG 8920 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shambhu Lal Gupta (Adv.) jktLo dh…

Herrenknecht India P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

…ue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and of Income Tax Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (supra) and CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangth Ltd.: (2014) 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) wherein, this Court, after taking into consideration the judgments of the Apex Court, has come to the conclusion that if PF/EPF/CPF/GPF etc., if paid after due date under the respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the IT Act, the same cannot be disallowed. 42. Taking into consideration the same an…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ganpati Exclusive Designer Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 696/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)

…s of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court including decision in case of CIT vs. SBBJ, 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) as well as CIT vs. JVVNL, 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). Subsequently, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) also decided this issue in favour of the assessee in para 6 to 10 as under :- “6. It was contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the CIT(A) and ITAT fell in error in deleting the addition made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act without considering the facts and legal aspect involved therein. It was sub…

M/S Ganpati Exclusive Designer Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)

M/S K.S. Cars Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1182/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala (JCIT)

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

…due date of filing of return. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in various cases i.e., CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131, CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 366 ITR 163, PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd., and CIT vs. M/s Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd.,(2017) 393 ITR 0421 has held that where the employees contribution to PF/ESI is deposited before due date of filing of return, the same cannot be disallowed u/s 36(1)(va). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP of the departm…

Rajendra Kumar Sancheti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1082/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Filing Income Tax Return In Assessee’S Proprietary Firms M/S. Four Season Restaurant & M/S. Four Season (India) Tours.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…f Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court including decision in case of CIT vs. SBBJ, 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) as well as CIT vs. JVVNL, 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). Subsequently, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) also decided this issue in favour of the assessee in para 6 to 10 as under :- “6. It was contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the CIT(A) and ITAT fell in error in deleting the addition made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act without considering the facts and legal aspect involved therein. It was sub…

M/S. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 817/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 251Section 36(1)Section 43BSection 80I

…ered in favour of assessee by the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131, CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307, CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 366 ITR 163, PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd.and CIT vs. M/s Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 0421. 7. Admittedly, the employees’s contribution to PF has been paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The issue is no more res integra in light of various judicial pronouncements of the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 772/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 251Section 36(1)Section 43BSection 80I

Deputy Commissionr of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, we confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) and ground of appeal taken by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 816/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43B

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, 99 DTR 131 (Raj.) as well as decision in the case of CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 (Raj.) and further in the case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163 (Raj.). This Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated 18.8.2017 has decided this issue in para 7 to 9 as under :- “7. In ground no. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,24,442/- made on account of late deposition of EPF after due date of the PF Act. In th…

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)

…relevant statute, but before due date of filing of return no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of section 43B of the Act. In the case of CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.), the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, after referring to the apex court decision in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 & CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2007]213CTR 268 (SC) held that the deductions should be allowed for the payment of employees' contribution made before the due date of filing of return. Si…

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