M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B

SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA,BARMER vs. ITO,WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

43B of the Act. It is an established position that disallowance u/s.43B can be made of an amount which has been claimed as deduction by the assesse. In other words, when deduction has not been claimed, question of making disallowance by invoking the provisions of section

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

disallowed. On 30-4-2009, the Commissioner issued the impugned notice under section 263 on the ground that the assessment order passed on 27-12-2007 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assessee challenged said notice contending that though, in form, the Commissioner had sought to revise the order dated 27-12-2007 which

DEVRAJ BEHARNANI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, C-3, JODHPUR/ CPC, BENGALURU, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad149/Jodh/2022 (Assessment Year- 2020-21) Shri Devraj Beharnani Vs The Acit Atmaram Building Circle-3 Outside Sojati Gate Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adtpb 0305 M

disallowance made by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act on account of appellant’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI of Rs.1,44,813/- within the prescribed due date as per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law. The order is, therefore, confirmed fully. Appellant ground on the issue fails