However, In View Of Decision Of This Court In Dbincome Tax Appeal v. M/S. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugarmills Ltd., Decided On 26.05.2016, The Issues Are Completelycovered By The Said Decision Of This Court. Therefore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR. (1) D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.128/2015 Principal Commissioner of Income TaxVersus M/s. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (2) D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.172/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income TaxVersus M/s. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (3) D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.175/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income TaxVersus M/s. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 09[th] November, 2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Mr. Nikhil Simlote, for the appellant. BY THE COURT Obj0018EDFAObject 1 1.By way of these appeal, the appellant has challengedthe judgment and order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appellant's appeals and has affirmed theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By way of these appeal, the appellant has challenged 2.In Income Tax Appeal No.172/2016 the Tribunal hasspecifically confirmed the order only in view of the fact thatthe CIT (Appeals) has followed the decision of the Tribunal.In all appeals we are not reproducing the questions of law but in Income Tax Appeal No.128/2015 we are producing the questions of law as under : i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in deleting theadditions of Rs.73,20,000/- made by theAssessing Officer holding that the Excise Dutycannot be part of valuation of finished stocku/s. 145A and can only levied on the removalof goods from the premises.case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting theadditions of Rs.73,20,000/- made by theAssessing Officer holding that the Excise Dutycannot be part of valuation of finished stocku/s. 145A and can only levied on the removalof goods from the premises. ii)Whether on the facts and in law the ITAT wasjustified in deleting the addition ofRs.97,15,000/- holding that the Export passfee was allowable expenditure deposit of thefact that it was contingent liability.justified in deleting the addition ofRs.97,15,000/- holding that the Export passfee was allowable expenditure deposit of thefact that it was contingent liability.iii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law indeleting the addition of Rs.6,86,900/- made bythe Assessing Officer on account of accruedinterest earned on accrued interest earned ondecreed disputed compensation.case, the Tribunal was justified in law indeleting the addition of Rs.6,86,900/- made bythe Assessing Officer on account of accruedinterest earned on accrued interest earned ondecreed disputed compensation. iv)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in deleting theaddition of one crore made by the AssessingOfficer by way of disallowing privilege fees paidby the assessee to Excise Commissioner Govt.Rajasthan despite the fact that it wasapplication of income.case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting theaddition of one crore made by the AssessingOfficer by way of disallowing privilege fees paidby the assessee to Excise Commissioner Govt.Rajasthan despite the fact that it wasapplication of income. v)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal has erred in deleting additionof Rs.6,463/- made under Section 36(1)(va)r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the IT Act for depositing theemployee's contribution to PF & ESI beyond theprescribed time limit provided in the respectiveActs. case, the Tribunal has erred in deleting additionof Rs.6,463/- made under Section 36(1)(va)r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the IT Act for depositing theemployee's contribution to PF & ESI beyond theprescribed time limit provided in the respectiveActs. v)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal has erred in deleting additionof Rs.6,463/- made under Section 36(1)(va)r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the IT Act for depositing theemployee's contribution to PF & ESI beyond theprescribed time limit provided in the respectiveActs. case, the Tribunal has erred in deleting additionof Rs.6,463/- made under Section 36(1)(va)r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the IT Act for depositing theemployee's contribution to PF & ESI beyond theprescribed time limit provided in the respectiveActs. vi)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal has erred in holding thatemployee's contribution to PF & ESI aregoverned by the provision of section 43B andnot by section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(X) of theIT Act.case, the Tribunal has erred in holding thatemployee's contribution to PF & ESI aregoverned by the provision of section 43B andnot by section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(X) of theIT Act. 3.However, in view of decision of this Court in DBIncome Tax Appeal No.99/2009, titled as Commissioner ofIncome Tax Vs. M/s. Rajasthan State Ganganagar SugarMills Ltd., decided on 26.05.2016, the issues are completelycovered by the said decision of this Court. Therefore, substantial questions of law are required to be answered infavour of the assessee and against the Department. 4.Some of the question of law raised here were raised inearlier appeal but were not considered as substantialquestion of law therefore, all the appeals deserve to bedismissed. 5.Accordingly, dismissed. 6.A copy of this order be placed in connected matters. (Goverdhan Bardhar), J. (K.S. Jhaveri), J. MS/-2-4