SOL ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 11(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4924/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 November 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee PF/ESIC contributions is not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal also found merit in the assessee's contention regarding disallowance of current year's loss based on Section 170(1) and directed the AO to re-verify.

What were the facts?

The assessee's representative did not appear for the hearing, leading to an ex-parte proceeding. The appeal challenges the CIT(A)'s order sustaining disallowances made by the AO concerning delayed deposit of employee PF/ESIC contributions and disallowance of current year's loss.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of delayed employee PF/ESIC contributions is justified under Section 36(1)(va) and if the disallowance of current year's loss under Section 170(1) was correctly applied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 36(1)(va),Section 143(3),Section 139(1),Section 43B,Section 2(24)(x),Section 170(1),Section 79,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

For Respondent: Ms. Kavit Kaushik, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.11.2025Pronounced: 12.11.2025

Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeals have been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order dt. 07.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the 2. case was called repeatedly. After going through the case file, we noticed that even on the last date of hearings assessee had sought adjournment, thus, on the said request of the assessee matter was fixed for arguments for 2 Sol Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai.

today i.e 10.11.2025 but still neither the assessee nor his re

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →