JUDGMENT 1. - These Income-tax appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the I.T. Act") are directed against the orders dated September 30, 2008, August 20, 2010, September 30, 2008, September 30, 2008, and September 30, 2008, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short "the ITAT") arising out of I.T.A. No. 825/JP/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06, I.T.A. No. 333/JP/2010 the assessment year 2006-07, I.T.A. No. 826/JP/2008 the assessment year 2003-04, I.T.A. No. 76/JP/2008 the assessment year 2001-02 and I.T.A. No. 827/JP/2008 the assessment year 2004-05, respectively. 2. Since the controversy involved is identical, these Income-tax appeals are being decided by this common order. 3. The brief facts as reveal from the record are that a claim was made by the respondent-assessee about the payment of GPF, CPF and ESI and the said amount was claimed under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Income-tax Act. It is the claim of the Revenue that the said amounts though paid by the assessee but was not paid within the due date as given under the relevant Acts of GPF, CPF and ESI and, therefore, the said amounts could not be allowed either under section 36(1)(va) and even under section 43B of the Income-tax Act as it was not paid on or before the due date of the respective Acts. 4. It is the claim of the respondent-assessee that though the amounts could not be paid on or before the due date under the respective Acts but the same was deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the Income-tax returns under section 139 of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, in view of section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act the entire amount was allowable. 5. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the amount had to be deposited on or before the due date of the respective GPF Act, CPF Act and ESI Act and since the same was not paid on or before the due date of the respective Acts, therefore, it was not even allowable under the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act nor could be allowed under section 43B of the Income-tax Act. 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue and have also gone through the impugned orders. 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue and have also gone through the impugned orders. In our view, no substantial question of law arise out of the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as it is an admitted fact that the entire amount was deposited by the respondent-assessee at least on or before the due date of filing of the returns under section 139 of the Income-tax Act and being a concurrent finding of fact by the respective authorities and in the light of the judgments rendered by this court in the case of CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (D.B. Income-tax Appeal No. 177 of 2011) so also CIT v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (D.B. Income-tax Appeal No. 189 of 2011)-since reported in [2014] 363 ITR 70 (Raj)) , of even date wherein it has been held that if the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return under section 139 and admittedly it was deposited on or before the due date then the amount cannot be disallowed under section 43B of the Income-tax Act or under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In fact in the above matters one of the party is same as in the present appeals, therefore, the issue is no more res integra in the light of the judgments of this court referred to supra and, in our view, no substantial question of law arises out of the impugned orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which may require attention of this court. 7. We find no merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed in limine. *******