MS SUPPORT SERVICES LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI, DELHI

It emerges at the outset that the assessee/appellant raises its identical substantive ground in all the three instant cases that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in invoking section 36(1)(v)(a) PF/ESI contribution disallowance(s) involving varying sums, assessment year wise, respectively forming the sole subject matter for the tribunal’s apt adjudication herein.

That being the case, Mr. Kapoor’s first and foremost argument is that the aforesaid issue of PF/ESI disallowance involving the employees’ contribution is very much debatable one as per hon’ble apex court’s recent interim order in Woodland (Aero Club) (P.) Ltd. 49(SC) admitted on Vs. ACIT (2026) 187 taxmann.com 27.01.2026; reading as under:

The assessee’s second substantive argument raised herein is that even if it is held that such a disallowance could indeed by made on account of the assessee’s failure in not ensuring compliance to the provisions of the corresponding statute, section 143(1) “processing” in all the three instant cases is also not sustainable in law. And that his third substantive argument is that is in light of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Punjab Financial Corporation Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 510 (P&H) & Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. High Land Produce Co. Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 803 (Ker) that such a claim could indeed be held allowable u/s 37 of the Act as well.

The Revenue on the other hand places strong reliance on both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking the impugned section 36(v)(a) PF/ESI disallowance(s) in the assessee’s hands. 6 | P a g e

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. We find no reason to interfere with the learned lower authorities’ respective findings. We make it clear first of all that hon’ble apex court’s larger bench decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278(SC) has indeed settled the law against the assessee and in the department’s favour that section 36(1)(v)(a) disallowance gets attracted in an instance where the former does not comply with the provisions of the corresponding statute. Their lordships further hold that relevant “due date” is not of filing section 139(1) return as well’. The same has admittedly not been considered in the admission order of Woodland (Aero Club) (P.) Ltd. case. We thus place our heavy reliance on the lordships “larger” bench decision to adjudicate the issue in the department’s favour in very terms.

So far as the assessee’s second argument that the impugned disallowance could not have been made in section 143(1) processing herein, we find that hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Woodland (Aero Club) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2025) 178 taxmann.com 207 (Del.) has rejected the very stand. We thus decline the assessee’s instant second argument as well.

Lastly comes the assessee’s third argument that such a claim could indeed be allowable u/s 37 of the Act as well(supra). We, hereby conclude that the third issue also gets settled in the lordships decision in Woodland (Aero Club) (P.) Ltd. as well as in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278(SC) upholding section 36(1) disallowance which is hereby decided in the department’s favour in very terms. No other ground or argument has been raised before us.

These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos. 1454 to 1456/Del/2026 are dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.