PUSHPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. However, the Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) was not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee paid employee contributions to EPF and ESI after the due date but before the due date for filing the return of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of employee contributions to EPF/ESI paid after the due date but before the return filing due date is justified for AY 2019-20.
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 27-08-2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2019-20.
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 disallowed Rs.42,235/- on account of non-payment of contribution to Employees‟ Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance before the due date as prescribed. It was contended that the said amount relating to employees‟ contribution was paid within due date relating to filing of return of income. The CIT(A) found the said submissions not acceptable and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO, CPC, Bangalore for late payment which is not covered u/s 43B of the Act. There is no dispute regarding the said payment within due date of filing of return of income and the amendment by way of Explanation (1) to clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021 is not applicable in view of the present year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2019-20. Thus, the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) is not justified and 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 →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026