KOTTARAKARA TALUK GOVERNMENT SERVANT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2 , KOLLAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) based on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court rulings. However, it allowed the Section 80P deduction as the amendment disallowing it was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerned disallowances made under Section 36(1)(va) and Section 80P for AY 2019-2020 during processing under Section 143(1)(a)(v). The assessee did not appear for the hearing.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed employee contributions is permissible in Section 143(1)(a) processing, and whether Section 80P deduction could be disallowed for AY 2019-2020 based on a prospective amendment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 36(1)(va),Section 80P,Section 143(1)(a)(v),Section 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT1,392 citing448 ITR 518 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
- Rohan Korgaonkar v. DCIT35 citing159 Taxmann.com 321 · 2024 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
Appellant by : --- None--- Respondent by : Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 05.11.2024 Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal in 2019-2020 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / NFAC vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051491578(1) dated 28.03.2023, passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee.
We note at the outset that the first and foremost clinching issue herein is regarding correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing the assessee’s sec.36(1)(va) and section 80P deduction(s) in section 143(1)(a)(v) “processing” dated 29.09.2020.
. Kottarakara Taluk Govt Servant Co-op So Ltd.
Suffice to say, case law(s) Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) and [2024] 159 taxmann.com 321 (Bom.) Rohan Korgaonkar vs. DCIT quoted at the Revenue’s behest have already settle the issue against the assessee that such dues have to be credited within the “due” date as per the corresponding statute than that of sec.139(1) return date and a disallowance to this effect could be indeed made in sec.143(1)(a)(v) “processing” respectively. We thus uphold the impugned sec.36(1)(va) disallowance in very terms.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Concept Motors (India) Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs Assessing Officer, Circle-4(2), DelhiDelhi9 Sept 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Rohan Korgaonkar v. DCIT and 1 other authority
The tribunal held that compliance to Section 36(1)(va) should be as per the due date of the corresponding statute, not as per Section 139(1). They cited landmark decisions from the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court.
- Shri Jagdish Kumar Gulia, Bhopal vs Thre Asstt.Directore of Income Tax, CPC…Indore9 May 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Rohan Korgaonkar v. DCIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that disallowances for delayed payment of employee's PF/ESI contributions are permissible under section 143(1) and upheld the disallowance on merits, following Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Ho...
- Genesys International Corporation Limited… vs DCIT CPC Bangalore, BangaloeMumbai21 Feb 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Rohan Korgaonkar v. DCIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding Ground Nos. 1 and 2, the Tribunal noted the assessee's argument that the Section 143(1) intimation merges with the regular assessmen...
- JCIT(in-Situ), Circle-1, Patna vs Technoculture Building Centre Private…Patna3 Jun 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Rohan Korgaonkar v. DCIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of closing stock was wrongly deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide necessary details. Regarding the employee contributions, the Tribunal upheld the additio...
- Ts5 Secure Private Limited, New Delhi vs ADIT Circle 25(1), DelhiDelhi24 Dec 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on Rohan Korgaonkar v. DCIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for EPF/ESI contributions paid after the statutory due dates but before the Section 139(1) return filing date is settled against the assessee by higher court pronouncement...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
