Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 45 (0.85 seconds)
Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, ... vs Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Dcit, Cr.1 ... on 22 February, 2022
cites
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
THE FINANCE ACT, 2021
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 113 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Finance Act, 2013
The Finance Act, 2018
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur - Ii vs State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur on 20 September, 2021
This
decision of Honble Rajasthan High Court is based on an earlier
decision of the same High Court in the case of CIT vs State Bank Of
Bikaner and Jaipur 363 ITR 70.After going through the texts of
judgment in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, I find that
this decision of Honble Rajasthan High Court was based on the
decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cements
Ltd(supra). As already discussed in the foregoing paras as to how the
decisions of various high courts based on the Honble Apex Court
decision in the case Vinay Cements Ltd fall in the category of sub-
silentio decision as the issue in the case of Vinay Cemnts Ltd was
pertaining to s.43B(b) deduction on delayed payments of Employers
contribution to PF/ESIC and not the Employees contributions. Thus,
such sub-silentio decisions loose binding precedence . In view of
these discussions, I hold that the appellant is not eligible for
deduction of Rs.5,61,32,750/- pertaining to employees contribution.
Also, the AO was well within his jurisdiction u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the
Act to disallow an incorrect claim of Rs.5,61,32,750/- apparent from
the information in Form no. 3CD attached with the return of income.
Therefore, grounds of appeal no. 1 to 2 are hereby dismissed.