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.

Nirmal Kumar Bardiya, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 260 /JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Nirmal Kumar Bardiya cuke ACIT Vs. 24, Bardiya Colony, Museum Road Circle-1 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABAPB 9576 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 261/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Shri Nirmal K…

Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1958/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1958 & 1959/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2017-18 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Mr.R.D. Khona.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Love Kumar.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1958 & 1959/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Pravin Electricals Pvt Vs CIT (A), National Ltd., Faceless Appeal E-5/2, 1st Floor, Centre. Highland Park, Jai Delhi Shastri Nagar, Mulund Colony, Mulund (W), Mumbai - 400082 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. :AABCP9664P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.R.D. Khona.AR Respondent by : Mr. Love Kumar.DR Date of Hearing 26.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE…

Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Astt. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore [DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai]

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1838/MUM/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhemkay Facilities Vs. Acit (Cpc), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [Dcit Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Emkay Facilities Vs. ACIT (CPC), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [DCIT Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCE0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order…

C R Textile Mills, Athanoor vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 54/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – 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,…

Gokul Industries, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 412/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh (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,…

Vanitha Textiles, Palladam vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 407/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 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,…

Gokul Industries, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 577/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh (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,…

M/S Cauvery Stones, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 124/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel (Advocate) -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 Cauvery Stones Impex Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 123/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel (Advocate) -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,…

Amazinf Export Corporation, Palladam vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 99/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)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. Ultracon Structural System Private Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Corporate Circle - 3(2), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 97/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)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,…

Mudhra Fine Blanc Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 96/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)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,…

Mookambika Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, Madurai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 95/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Balakrishnan (Director) & ShriFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(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,…

Sri Mookambika Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, Madurai, Tamil Nadu vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 94/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Balakrishnan (Director) & ShriFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(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,…

M/S Tsugami Precision Engineering India P Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 89/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)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 Tsugami Precision Engineering India P Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 88/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)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,…

Wheels India Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 8/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)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,…

Dfe Pharma India LLP, Cuddallore vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 78/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)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,…

Tav&Company, Erode vs. DCIT, Cps, Bengaluru

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 73/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 253(4)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,…

Marshal Textiles Private Limited, Erode vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 6/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 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,…