TONGANAGAON TEA CO. (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 364/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 August 2026AY 2019-202013 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the disallowed amount qualifies for deduction under Section 80-IC requires further factual examination. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80-IC. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an adjustment for delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF/ESI, disallowing Rs. 65,21,529. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed payment of employees' PF/ESI contributions, disallowed under Section 36(1)(va), can be considered for deduction under Section 80-IC. The interpretation of 'derived from' in the context of Section 80-IC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 80-IC,Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 364/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Tonganagaon Tea Co. (P) Ltd. D.C.I.T., Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCT1824D Appearances: Assessee represented by : Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate. Department represented by : Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 21.07.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 10.08.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Pune [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘Addl/JCIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2019-20 dated 17.11.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. That under the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of a sum of Rs.65,21,529/- made by the AO for the delayed payment of employees contribution to PF in terms of section 36(1)(va) read with sections 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The disallowance is unjustified and need be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the Ground No-1: That, due to the disallowance of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF in terms of section 36(1)(va) read with sections 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the profit & gains of business & profession increased by

“6. DECISION: 6.1 I have gone through the facts of the case, the grounds of appeal and submission made by the appellant. It is seen that all the three grounds raised against the rectification order u/s 154 of the act passed by CPC vide order dated 12.01.2023 for A.Y 2019-20, therefore the grounds of appeal are adjudicated as under: 6.2 Ground No.1: The main issue involved in these grounds of appeal are that the CPC had made adjustment on account of late deposit of Employee Contribution towards EPF and ESI of an amount of Rs. 65,21,529/- in view of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The appellant had made its submission and other related documents in response to the hearing notice u/s 250 of the Act issued by the undersigned. (Note: The order then reproduces an extract of Form 3CD detailing the PF payment dates, which is omitted here for readability, before continuing with the findings). 6.3 On careful perusal and consideration of aforementioned detailed reply along with evidences/documents submitted in support of grounds of appeal corroborating the facts of the case; it is observed that the appellant had not made deposits of employee contribution towards EPF/ESI to the tune of Rs. 65,21,529/- within the due date as specified in respective acts. It is to

5.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that there are two issues involved. Ground No. 1 relates to the delayed payment of EPF on account of employees’ contribution. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) noted that the assessee had not made deposits of employees’ contribution towards EPF

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata

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 →