← All Phrases

“Section 2(24)(x)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)1,421 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(24)(x) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(24)(x)

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.
378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn
41 Taxmann.com 100 · 2014 · High Court
540
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund or other welfare funds are deductible under section 36(1)(va) only if paid by the due date specified in the respective welfare fund enactments, and section 43B does not extend this period to the income tax return filing due date under section 139(1).

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court
524
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

Judgments citing Section 2(24)(x)

Simbhaoli Sugars Limited, Hapur vs. ACIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Bulandshahr

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2104/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The "Due Date" For Furnishing The Return Of Income Under I. Tax Act.

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2(24)(x) or in fact the other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer ... long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute

Divyapalsinh Tejpalsinh Jadeja, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 579/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute ... crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x)- unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied le., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

Divyapalsinh Tejpalsinh Jadeja, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 578/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute ... crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x)- unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied le., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

Bose Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 435/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 435/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bose Management Services Private Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Limited Vs Kolkata P-82, Dakshini Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Canal South Road Kolkata - 700105 [Pan : Aadcb1495J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/05/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Under These Circumstances, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Instant Appeal Ex- Parte Qua The Assessee, On The Basis Of Available Records & Hearing The Ld. D/R.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Moog Motion Controls Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 184/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K. P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

Supreme Court would leave no room for doubt or ambiguity regarding the real intent and purport of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Thus, as per the clear language of the aforesaid provisions, unless employees' contribution to PF and ESI are deposited within ... would get no deduction under section 36(1)(va), but the amount in question has to be treated as assessee's income under section 2(24)(x) of the Act. To that extent, the issue stands squarely settled by the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case

Markolines Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 366/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) – unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd., Belapur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-15(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1170/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) – unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

ACIT-15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2967/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) – unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

M/S Barnala Builders and Consultant, Zirakpur vs. DCIT/ACIT (Cen)-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 274/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

relevant welfare ESI/PF schemes, it was held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer’s income under section 2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed under section 36(1)(va) only if such sum is deposited in the employee

Anandtex International P.Ltd, Panipat vs. ACIT, Circle, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8771/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd, Nee Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2149/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 194Section 194CSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 2,04,44,135/- in violating of the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employee contributions towards PF/ESI.” 3. Perused the material before us and heard the arguments of ld. DR. Delay ... dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have been allowed

Goribi Abdul Karim Nadaf, Pune vs. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Addl JCIT (A) -1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 517/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Goribi Abdul Karim Nadaf, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl JCIT (A) 1 - Ahmedabad, Addl/JCIT (A) Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 516/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg)(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1009/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) (P)Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1008/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

M/S. Humara India Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 33, Kolkata

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

ITA 135/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Humara India Credit Acit, Circle-33, Co-Operative Society Limited Kolkata 101, 227/2 Mangal Jyoti Vs Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata- 700020. Pan: Aaaah 8186 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

hands of assessee and added to the income of the assessee. In view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld. AO also noticed that the assessee has failed to deposit TDS relating to certain expenses

Pride Distributors Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 69/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y Marathe, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y Marathe, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Shashank Tiwari, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3098/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Rohtagi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Ms

Sai Service Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1075/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL

Sai Service Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1074/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL