CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) can be made. In the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 1 (SC) had to consider

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) can be made. In the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 1 (SC) had to consider

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) can be made. In the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 1 (SC) had to consider

LALIT KUMAR CHABRA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KOTA

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

disallowances made on delayed payments on account of Employee's contribution. Thus, this issue has become a debatable. However, certain amendments to the sections 43B & 36(10)(va) of the Act were made in the Finance Bill of 2021 by insertion of Explanations to those sections. Explanation 5 to Section 43B, reads as under:- "Explanation 5. —For the removal

LALIT KUMAR CHABRA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KOTA

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

disallowances made on delayed payments on account of Employee's contribution. Thus, this issue has become a debatable. However, certain amendments to the sections 43B & 36(10)(va) of the Act were made in the Finance Bill of 2021 by insertion of Explanations to those sections. Explanation 5 to Section 43B, reads as under:- "Explanation 5. —For the removal

GOSIL EXPORTS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -I, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Return.’’

disallowed under section 438 or under section 36(1)(va) of the LT.Act, In the case of [2014] CIT v.Jaipur

AJEET SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

438, whereby actual date of payment is enough for considering deduction, if such date falls before date for filing return but in absence of any amendment made to section 36(1)(va), both contribution, Viz., ‘employees’and ‘employees’ cannot be brought under same scope and ambit of section 43B to claim deduction. The following are the list of the decisions

AMIT SINGH,BHIWADI (ALWAR) vs. DCIT, CPC- BENGALURU, CPC- BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

438 & Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) , there is no distinction between employees' and employer contribution to PF & ESIC, and if the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then no disallowance

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

section 43B of the Act. It was submitted that in the instant case under consideration, the AO has disallowed a sum of Rs. 61,86,770/- u/s 438

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

section 43B of the Act. It was submitted that in the instant case under consideration, the AO has disallowed a sum of Rs. 61,86,770/- u/s 438

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

section 43B of the Act. It was submitted that in the instant case under consideration, the AO has disallowed a sum of Rs. 61,86,770/- u/s 438

TRANSINDIA NONWOVENS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance in apparent from the details filed. These details have been filed by the appellant itself and that processing has been done without any human interface. In view of the provisions of Section has been done without any human interface. In view of the provisions of Section 36(1)(va), the details entered by the appellant are automatically detected

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance under Section 14A is not in accordance with the provisions of section14A/Rule 8D. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT, Bangalore vs. Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 115 (Copy at PB page 209-212) has held that where investments had been made by assessee from capital and reserves and not out of borrowed

TRUWORTH INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D is warranted as no borrowings were used in acquisition of these shares nor any administrative expenses etc. were incurred. The assessee also not earned exempt income and hence section 14A is inapplicable. The judicial pronouncement supports the case of assessee. The Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (2021) 438

SHRI MADHOPUR KRAYA VIKRAYA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SHRIMADHOPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEEM KA THANA, NEEM KA THANA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowances. The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as Sections 32- 37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation). Each of these deductions has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN AVAS VIKAS & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing."

disallowed under Section 438 or under Section 36(I)(va) of the IT Act." CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

VYONA LOGISTICS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

438 shall not be apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of determining the "due date" under this clause;' It is clearly mentioned in the Finance Act, 2021 that Provision of Section 43B shall not apply in Section 36(1)(va). The addition of Rs. 10,26,853/- is hereby confirmed. The order

ALFAMAX PACKAGING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

438 shall not be apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of determining the "due date" under this clause;' It is clearly mentioned in the Finance Act, 2021 that Provision of Section 43B shall not apply in Section 36(1)(va). The addition of Rs. 10,26,853/- is hereby confirmed. The order