COUNTRY ART AND CRAFT LLP,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 8

U AND T TRACTOR SPARES PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

disallowed in terms of section 36(1)(va) while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) and has been rightly confirmed by the ld CIT(A) following the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Bharat Hotels Ltd, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT vs Suzlon Energy Ltd 115 Taxmann.com

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

8. The Finance Act, 2021 had introduced the following amendment by bringing in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act: “[Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date

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

8. The Finance Act, 2021 had introduced the following amendment by bringing in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act: “[Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date

PUSHAPRAJ KOTHARI,JASOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER, BARMER

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years : 2018-19 Puspapraj Kothari Vs. The Acit, Yashwal, Nakoda Road, Jasol, Barmer Circle, 344024 Barmer Pan No: Aaupk1365N Appellant Respondent

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 3. Now the assessee is in appeal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 5. However, it is seen that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various orders of the Coordinate Benches

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the separate decisions of the various Benches of the ITAT including the jurisdictional ITAT, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

MONA MARBLES PVT. LD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the separate decisions of the various Benches of the ITAT including the jurisdictional ITAT, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

MONA MARBLES PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the separate decisions of the various Benches of the ITAT including the jurisdictional ITAT, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the separate decisions of the various Benches of the ITAT including the jurisdictional ITAT, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

PREM KISHORE AGARWAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to cases, therefore respectfully following the earlier orders as referred to herein above of the different

HISTORIC RESORT HOTELS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return.

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to cases, therefore respectfully following the earlier orders as referred to herein above of the different

ZEPHYRSUN ELECTRO MECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAISALMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to cases, therefore respectfully following the earlier orders as referred to herein above of the different

ARPIT GULECHA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR , JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing. 9. The petitioner prays for justice & relief. 3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs. 1,75,989/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section

DR. CHOUDHARY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 27/09/2021 passed by the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench

BIKANER CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Return. The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Jurisdictional High Court Decision. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to cases, therefore respectfully following the earlier orders as referred to herein above of the different

DR. CHOUDHARY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 27/09/2021 passed by the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench

WHEEL O CITY,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated

ARPIT GULECHA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated