THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

disallowance under section 43B, read with sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va), is warranted in the instant case

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

disallowance under section 43B, read with sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va), is warranted in the instant case

VIJAYA METTALICA INCORPORATED,RAJKOT vs. THE ADIT, CPC, BANGALOREQ, BANGALORE

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

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 115/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No. 2 Vijaya Mettalica Incorporated 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1 The learned CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the disallowance of employee’s contribution u/s. 36(1)(va

M/S. JAI MAA HIRAL ENTERPRISE,KHAMBHALIYA vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed such expenditure while finalising the assessment. The Principal CIT further observed that the assessee had made payments toward employees provident fund after due date as prescribed in section 36(1)(va

THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SMT. SHITALBEN SAURABH VORA,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

disallowance of contribution to Employees' Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance of Rs. 1,72,3941- u/s 438 of IT. Act, 1961 by stating that the same is not deposited within the due date prescribed under section 36(1 )(va

M/S. SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DCIT, SURENDRANAGR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

disallowance of contribution to Employees' Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance of Rs. 1,72,3941- u/s 438 of IT. Act, 1961 by stating that the same is not deposited within the due date prescribed under section 36(1 )(va

SHRI RAM FIRE WORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (1) (4),, RAJKOT

Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

disallowable. Thereafter in appeal ld. CIT(A) confirmed action of the A.O. 3. Before us, ld. A.R. fairly conceded that this case is against the assessee the Hon’ble High Court in the matter of GSRTC 366 ITR 170 wherein it is held: "Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va

M/S. SHYAM ENTERPRISE,JAMNAGAR vs. ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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.8,85,284/- within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va

M/S. ATLAS METAL INDUSTRIES,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Us Against The Aforesaid Order Passed By Ld. Cit(Appeals).

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.8,85,284/- within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va

M/S. SHAILDEEP ENGINEERING P. LTD., RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2019-20 Shaildeep Engineering P.Ltd. Vs. Adit, Cpc C-1/38, Gidc, Aji Industrial Delhi. Estate, Phase-1, Rajkot Sanosara B.O.,Jaliya Rajkot 360 003. Pan : Aaecs 9245 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Akash Goda, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 27.12.201 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2019-20. 2. As Transpires From Orders Of The Authority Below, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Vis-À-Vis Adjustment Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Intimation Made Under Section 143(1) Of The Act By Way Of Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80Jja Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,02,500/- & Disallowance Of Employees’ 2 Contribution To Esi & Pf In Terms Of Section 36(1)(Va) Amounting To Rs.2,81,444/-. The Reasons For Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jja Being Non-Filing Of Necessary Audit Report In Form No.10Da Along With Return Of Income & That For Disallowance Of Employees’ Contribution To Esi & Pf Being Late Deposit Of The Same With The Requisite Funds.

section 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs.2,81,444/-. The reasons for disallowance of deduction under section 80JJA being non-filing

M/S. SERVEWELL HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES ,SHAPER-VERAVAL, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 139/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Servewell Household Appliances, The Principal Commissioner Plot No.16 & 20, Vs. Of Income Tax-1, Survey No.211 Rajkot-1, Nr. Roto Leaner Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot. Narmada Road Veaval-Shaper, Rajkot.

va) of the Act and the conditions laid down under the provisions of section 43B read with section 36(1)(v) of the Act. As such the impugned amount was not allowable as deduction. 4. In view of the above the learned CIT proposed to hold the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI MILANKUMAR M. POBARU,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

disallowing employees contribution to ESI deposited delayed, u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Gujarat State Transport (supra) categorically holding that the deposit of the same before the due date of filing of return of income will not suffice to escape from the provisions of section

SHRI ANKURBHAI DHANJIBHAI KHATARIYA,ANJAR-KUTCH vs. THE ITO-WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee upon

VIJAY COMMERCIAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,RAJKOT vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 862 /Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) Vijay Commercial Co- Vs. Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Operative Bank Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay Bhavan, Kanak Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Rajkot – 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaav3799C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. R. Mankodi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing :11/02/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement :05/05/2025

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 29.03.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1) (1) Hon CIT(A) has failed to examine the evidences submitted to establish that after December 2016 also, the glitches in the EPF portal were continued and VIJAY COMMERCIAL

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such disallowance is noted from the ITR filed by the assessee for the year. In view of the above stated facts and observations, a notice under section

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such disallowance is noted from the ITR filed by the assessee for the year. In view of the above stated facts and observations, a notice under section

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such disallowance is noted from the ITR filed by the assessee for the year. In view of the above stated facts and observations, a notice under section

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such disallowance is noted from the ITR filed by the assessee for the year. In view of the above stated facts and observations, a notice under section

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such disallowance is noted from the ITR filed by the assessee for the year. In view of the above stated facts and observations, a notice under section