Pr. CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd.

84 Taxmann.com 173High Court2017#780 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI are deductible if deposited by the employer on or before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1). This is because section 43B has an overriding effect on section 36(1)(va).

131

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. · employee contribution PF ESI · section 36(1)(va) · section 43B · due date filing return of income · allowability employee contribution · 43B overriding 36(1)(va) · section 139(1) · provident fund ESI deposit · employer contribution due date

Issues it is cited on

employees contribution to pfsection 2(24)(x)section 2(24)section 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 36(1)revenue expendituresection 43section 36section 139(1)section 139section 13

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd.

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 384/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Badaya (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel (JCIT)
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” 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. 384/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 cuke Nimbus Pipes Limited ACIT, Vs. E-35, RIICO Industrial Area Ext Circle-4, Jaipur. Bagru, Jaipur-303007. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCN 1836 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohit Badaya (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5375/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 40

…It is contended by the appellant that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corp Ltd. 84 Taxmann.com 185 dismissing SLP and confirming the decision of Rajasthan High Court reported in 84 Taxmann.com 173 following TRF Ltd. vs. CIT 323 ITR 397 SC. It is also stated that the payments have been made before the due date. 27. It was submitted by the appellant that since all the deposits have been made before the due date of filing of return of income, therefore, the same deserves to be allowed. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. 27 CO No…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 6872/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 40

…It is contended by the appellant that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corp Ltd. 84 Taxmann.com 185 dismissing SLP and confirming the decision of Rajasthan High Court reported in 84 Taxmann.com 173 following TRF Ltd. vs. CIT 323 ITR 397 SC. It is also stated that the payments have been made before the due date. 27. It was submitted by the appellant that since all the deposits have been made before the due date of filing of return of income, therefore, the same deserves to be allowed. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. 27 CO No…

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 2/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: MonishaChoudhary, JCIT
Section 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 80J

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH-A, JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaMkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kklnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR. M. L. MEENA, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 02/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year: 2018-19 MayurUniquoters Ltd., cuke Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaitpura, Jaipur Sikar Road NFAC, New Delhi Jaitpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan India LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No: AAECM 1727F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 212/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year: 2019-20 MayurUniquoters Ltd.,…

SHRI UMESH RAOSAHEB PAWAR,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, THANE

In the result, Ground No.2

ITA 1901/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 1901/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2018-19) Shri Umesh Raosaheb Pawar Patil v. DCIT – 3 102, Shree Ganga Prasad Ashar I.T. Park, Road No. 16Z Ram Ganesh Gadkari Road Wagle Industrial Estate Ghantali, Sainath Chowk Thane, Mumbai - 400604 Thane - 400602 PAN: AAUPP3270B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Manoj Sinha Date of Hearing : 28.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is file…

M/S, MADRAS HYDRAULIC HOSE PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 702/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

LATE MR.SESHADRI NAIDU DHARMARAJ REP BY LEGAL HEIR - MR.SHANKAR GANESH,CHENNAI vs. CPC, BANGALORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 661/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

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

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

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

LATE MR.SESHADRI NAIDU DHARMARAJ REP BY LEGAL HEIR - MR.SHANKAR GANESH,CHENNAI vs. CPC, BANGALORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 660/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

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

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

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

C. R. ASSOCIATES,KOTA vs. ITO, WD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 263/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 cuke M/s. C.R. Associates The ITO 1 & 2 Hotel, The Grand Chandi Vs. Ward 1(1) Ram Jhalawar Road, Kota Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFC 9557 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :…

MANSOOR AIYAZ EBRAHIM,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRCTOR OF INCOMETAX,CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 622/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

MANSOOR AIYAZ EBRAHIM,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRCTOR OF INCOMETAX,CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 621/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

TONGLIT AUTOGISTIC PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF IT , CPC INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , BANGLORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 566/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh. S (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

HARI PRAKASH,GURUGRAM vs. ITIO WARD 62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2361/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri J.S. Kochar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Hari Prakash, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No. 598, Ward 62(1), Sector-10, New Delhi. Gurgram, Haryana, Pin 122 001 PAN AHKPP8457D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri J.S. Kochar, CA Department by : Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date of 25.05.2022 pronouncement O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA The appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 29.12.2017 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 20, New D…

M/S AMALGAMATIONS REPCO LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, BANGALORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 559/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R,Vijayaraghvan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

DCIT, CC -3 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TALENTPRO INDIA HR PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 459/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

GURUDEV MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

ITA 490/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (C.A)-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 43B

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

ANJAPPAR CHETTINAD AC RESTAURANT,CHENNAI vs. ITO. NON CORP WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 444/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan(C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

ITO,WARD1(1), TRICHY vs. ANJAPPAR CHETTINAD RESTAURANT, TRICHY

Appeal is allowed

ITA 443/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan(C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

ANJAPPAR CHETTINAD RESTAURANT ADAYAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON COP WARD-15(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 442/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

SRI MOOKAMBIKA INFOSOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MADURAI vs. PCIT 1, MADURAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 425/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Balakrishnan (for assessee)For Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ion is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the employer is entitled for deduction. 7. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 173; 04.08.2016) which followed the earlier decision in CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411; 06.01.2014). The Hon’ble Court, in the case of CIT V/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) held that the provisions of Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1)(va) and if read in isolation,…

Showing 1–20 of 131 · Page 1 of 7