MRS SHOBHA PRADEEP SINGH,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -1, NASHIK
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 amendment by way of Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, is not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee contended that employees' contribution to PF and ESI was paid within the due date of filing the return of income. The CIT(A) disallowed the deduction, relying on an amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI, paid after the due date but before the return filing date, is justified in light of the retrospective applicability of the amendment to Section 36(1)(va).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28-07-2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2018-19.
The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟).
The Assessing Officer (AO), CPC, Bangalore made disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for not depositing employees‟ contribution towards PF and ESI within specified time. It was contended by the assessee that the employees‟ contribution was paid within due date of filing of return of income and the assessee is entitled to get deduction. The CIT(A) recorded the said statement in para 2 of the impugned order, but however, disallowed taking into consideration the recent amendment by holding delayed payment of employees‟ contribution is not allowable u/s 43B of the Act. We note that Explanation (1) was inserted to clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021, wherein the definition of due date is defined making it clear that the assessee is required as an employer to credit employees‟ contribution to the employees account in the relevant fund under any Act, Rule, Order or Notification issued therein or under any Standing order, Award, Contract of service or otherwise. Admittedly, the assessment year under consideration is 2018-19 and in our opinion, the said amendment by way of Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 is not applicable. Therefore, the disallowance as confirmed by the CIT(A) is not justified. Thus, it is set aside by holding that the assessee is entitled to get deduction. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd June, 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 New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026