1 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. (1) D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.128/2015 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (2) D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.172/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (3) D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.175/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 09 th November, 2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Mr. Nikhil Simlote, for appellant. BY COURT Obj 0018EDFA Obj ect 1 1. By way of these appeal, appellant has challenged judgment and order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur whereby Tribunal has dismissed appellant's appeals and has affirmed order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. In Income Tax Appeal No.172/2016 Tribunal has specifically confirmed order only in view of fact that CIT (Appeals) has followed decision of Tribunal. In all appeals we are not reproducing questions of law 2 but in Income Tax Appeal No.128/2015 we are producing questions of law as under : i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in deleting additions of Rs.73,20,000/- made by Assessing Officer holding that Excise Duty cannot be part of valuation of finished stock u/s. 145A and can only levied on removal of goods from premises. ii) Whether on facts and in law ITAT was justified in deleting addition of Rs.97,15,000/- holding that Export pass fee was allowable expenditure deposit of fact that it was contingent liability. iii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in deleting addition of Rs.6,86,900/- made by Assessing Officer on account of accrued interest earned on accrued interest earned on decreed disputed compensation. iv) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of one crore made by Assessing Officer by way of disallowing privilege fees paid by assessee to Excise Commissioner Govt. Rajasthan despite fact that it was application of income. v) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal has erred in deleting addition of Rs.6,463/- made under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of IT Act for depositing employee's contribution to PF & ESI beyond prescribed time limit provided in respective Acts. vi) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal has erred in holding that employee's contribution to PF & ESI are governed by provision of section 43B and not by section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(X) of IT Act. 3. However, in view of decision of this Court in DB Income Tax Appeal No.99/2009, titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., decided on 26.05.2016, issues are completely covered by said decision of this Court. Therefore, 3 substantial questions of law are required to be answered in favour of assessee and against Department. 4. Some of question of law raised here were raised in earlier appeal but were not considered as substantial question of law therefore, all appeals deserve to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, dismissed. 6. copy of this order be placed in connected matters. (Goverdhan Bardhar), J. (K.S. Jhaveri), J. MS/-2-4 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd