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 366,314 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 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.

Sunil Healthcare Ltd., Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, ground No. 1 of the assessee

ITA 1099/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The End Of The Year & The Issue Is Covered By The Decision Of Rajasthan High

For Appellant: Shri P.C. ParwalFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Verma
Section 36(1)

…fore the end of the year and the issue is covered by the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70,CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 and CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163.” 2. Regarding Ground No. 1, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 23,47,751/- in the year under consideration under the head ‘Legal and professional charges’ in comparison to last year’s charges of Rs. 23,54,398/-. The assessee was asked to furnish details of legal and professional charges along with voucher…

The Alwar Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1016/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Mar 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal(CA)For Respondent: Shri Prithvi Raj Meena(Addl. CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ted beore the end o the yea and the issue is covered by the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70, CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 and CIT Vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd, 366 ITR 163. 2. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of the appeal. 3. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.” 2 M/s The Alwar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. 1. Only effective ground is against confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 13,82,959/- being employee’s contribution provident to PF. 2. Briefly, stated the fa…

DCIT, Cir-I, Kolkata vs. M/S the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 421/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

…yees contribution is already covered by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in favour of assessee in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UDAIPUR DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD. (2014) 265 CTR 0059 (Raj) : (2014) 98 DTR (Raj) 0109 : (2014) 366 ITR 163 (Raj) The head notes reads as under “Business Income–Disallowance–Validity of Deletion–Assessee, engaged in business of dairy product, processing and marketing of milk and milk product and cattle feed etc, filed its return of income–AO noticed that, assessee had deposited payment of Rs. 14,60,412 in PF fund and Rs.973 in ESI fund with delay, and…

ACIT, Kota vs. Shiv Edibles Ltd., Kota

In the result respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High

ITA 940/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gagieya (CA)For Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 36(1)(va)

…evenue has challenged in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,64,138/- made u/s 36(1)(va) on account of late payment of employees contribution to P.F. 5.1 The decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Udpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (366 ITR 163) has held that since the assessee has paid employees contribution towards PF before the due date of filing of the return the same is allowable u/s 43B of the IT Act. The Hon’ble High Court has held in its decision that whether employee and employees contribution are paid before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 133(9) no disallow…

Rajendra Kumar Sancheti, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Filing Income Tax Return Or Within Grace Period

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal , CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 284/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Shri Rajendra Kumar Sancheti The ITO Vs. 263-264, Johri Bazar, Jaipur Ward- 1(1), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGWPS 7304 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri Vijay Goyal , CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 06/02/2017 ?kks"…

M/S. the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 547/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)

…yees contribution is already covered by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in favour of assessee in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UDAIPUR DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD. (2014) 265 CTR 0059 (Raj) : (2014) 98 DTR (Raj) 0109 : (2014) 366 ITR 163 (Raj) The head notes reads as under “Business Income–Disallowance–Validity of Deletion–Assessee, engaged in business of dairy product, processing and marketing of milk and milk product and cattle feed etc, filed its return of income–AO noticed that, assessee had deposited payment of Rs. 14,60,412 in PF fund and Rs.973 in ESI fund with delay, and…