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

84 Taxmann.com 173High Court2017#781 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 366,470 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.

Sahana Clothing Company Private Limited, Dindigul vs. PCIT, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 417/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 Yeshwanth Kumar (C.A)-Ld. ARFor 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,…

Urc Construction Pvt Ltd., Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 390/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 G. Baskar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor 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,…

Hlf Services Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Ward, 2(3), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 370/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (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,…

Acp Drilling & Construction Pvt.Ltd., Namakkal vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 369/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 S. Gautham Venkatnarayanan (Advocate)-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,…

Ms Labels, Tiruppur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 362/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Senthil Kumar (Advocate) -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,…

Sapphire Clothing Company (I) Pvt. Limited, Tiruppur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 361/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Senthil Kumar (Advocate)-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,…

Ravindran, Tenkasi vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 359/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan (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,…

M/S Paypal India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 338/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 R. Aashish (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (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,…

M/S. Formoplastic Controls Private Ilimited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 334/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 Naresh Singh Rathore (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-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,…

Super Rubber Mix, Madurai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 1, Madurai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 323/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 M.T. Hariharan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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,…

Arun Polymers, Madurai vs. ACIT Non Corpcircle 1, Madurai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 322/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 M.T. Hariharan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. 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,…

Deccan Industries, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 320/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 A. Arjunraj (C.A)-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,…

The Ktm Jewellery Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporae Circle-2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 319/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 T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 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,…

A K Facility Services Private Limited, Thiruporrur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

Appeal is allowed

ITA 309/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Roopeswari R. (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(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,…

Dr Axion India Private Limited, Thiruvallur vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 302/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri M. Abhishek (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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 Ramesh Colour Match Works, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 300/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 M. Abhishek (C.A)-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,…

Sri Maharaj Colour Match Works, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 299/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 M. Abhishek (C.A)-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,…

Sri Ramesh Sparklers Facory, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 298/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 M. Abhishek (C.A)-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,…

M/S Saravana Selfavathnam Retail Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT.CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.288/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Sarvana Selvarathnam Retail Adit बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Cpc, No.14, Ranganathan Street, T. Nagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Chennai – 600 017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs-2680-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-06-2022

For Appellant: NoneFor 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,…

M/S Saravana Selvarathnam Trading & Manufacturing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Benguluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 287/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor 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,…