M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

section which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, which came into effect from 1st April, 1988, the letters numbered as clause (a), or cl. (c) or cl. (d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

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

section which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, which came into effect from 1st April, 1988, the letters numbered as clause (a), or cl. (c) or cl. (d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

section which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, which came into effect from 1st April, 1988, the letters numbered as clause (a), or cl. (c) or cl. (d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

section which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, which came into effect from 1st April, 1988, the letters numbered as clause (a), or cl. (c) or cl. (d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

section which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, which came into effect from 1st April, 1988, the letters numbered as clause (a), or cl. (c) or cl. (d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act 4. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, PCIT Udaipur has grossly erred in passing order u/s 263 of the Act in respect of issues for which reasonable and plausible view was taken by Ld. AO considering judicial precedents and sufficient material available on record. 5. Under

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) observed that it is not in dispute that appellant's ROI itself shown the delay in payments of Employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC amounting to Rs. 2,68,900/- within the "due date" prescribed as per Explanation 2 Section

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

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

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

36(1)(va) S. Nature of fund Sum Du date for The The actual No. received payment actual date of from amount payment to employees paid the concerned authorities 1. Superannuation 44573 15/05/2017 44573 19/05/2017 Fund 7.2 The ld. AR of the assessee also drawn our attention to clause no. 21(b) (the same is extracted here in below ) where

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) on account of delayed contribution to provident fund. Apart from this, the assessee also raised additional grounds, mentioned as below: a) Inclusion of Reliability Charge while computing Transfer Price for Power undertaking u/s 80IA b) Claim of deduction u's 80IA on eligible Solid Waste Management System as per Form 10CCB filed alongwith return of income

LAXMAN NAINANI,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

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

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

68,45,340/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) vide intimation dated 29-07-2020. The AO (CPC) made the disallowance by holding that the employees contribution towards PF/ESI is governed by the provisions of Section 36(1)(va

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145(3) of Act. The following additions are made by the AO. S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Trading addition of Rs. 7,68,940/- by applying 7,68,940.00 the G.P. rate of 8.60% as against the declared G.P rate of 8.52% declared by assessee 2. On account of late deposit of employee 33,914.00 contribution of Provident

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145(3) of Act. The following additions are made by the AO. S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Trading addition of Rs. 7,68,940/- by applying 7,68,940.00 the G.P. rate of 8.60% as against the declared G.P rate of 8.52% declared by assessee 2. On account of late deposit of employee 33,914.00 contribution of Provident

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) of IT Act as not maintainable and also as appellant is duly prevented in providing these details of unsecured loans confirmations as the stated creditors / finance brokers are not cooperating with appellant and accordingly pleaded to delete the order of AO as not maintainable. However, on perusal of facts on record, as brought

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

36(1)(va) in respect of 16 SHRI RAJESH CHOUDHARY VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” So, in view of the above it is submitted

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. The impugned order thus, to\nthis extent is a nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves\nto be quashed.\n4. Rs.63,97,664/-1 The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an altogether new issue of the alleged\ndisallowance u/s 43B(e) of the Act on account of interest