VIJAYA DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. This was because the legislative amendments and CBDT clarification regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B were applicable prospectively from April 1, 2021.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerned a disallowance of Rs. 10,24,086/- related to ESI/PF contributions for AY 2018-19. The disallowance was made in lower proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of employee's contribution to ESI/PF is sustainable when paid after the statutory due date but before the due date for filing the return, considering recent legislative changes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for AY.2018-19 arises from the from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dated 17-12-2021 passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037893750(1), involving proceedings u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive issue raised herein of Section 36(1)(va) ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.10,24,086/- (as against the actual amount stated of Rs.9,72,543/-) made in both the lower proceedings, the assessee’s and Revenue’s pleas before us are that the same has been paid before the due date of filing Sec.139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statute(s); respectively. We notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendment in Sections 36(1)(va) as well as u/s. 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 01-04-2021 only. It is further not an issue that the foregoing legislative amendments have proposed employers’ contribution/disallowance u/s.43B as against employee’s contribution u/s.36(va) of the Act; respectively. However, keeping in mind the fact that the same has been clarified to be applicable with prospective effect from 01-04-2021 only, we hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments. The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is deleted therefore. No other ground has been pressed before us.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10th March, 2022
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026