Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 36(1)(va), Section 40A(7), Section 43B, Section 139(1), Section 143(1).

378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT?

67 judgments on BharatTax cite 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (409 ITR 225), spanning 2019 to 2025.

409 ITR 225High Court2018#1687 most cited

What is 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT authority for?

The beneficial provisions of Section 43B do not apply to sums covered by Section 36(1)(va), which are employee contributions to welfare funds. The scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are distinct, meaning belated payment of employee contributions is not deductible under Section 43B, and only Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) governs their deductibility.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT · 409 ITR 225 · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · Section 2(24)(x) · employee contribution · provident fund · ESI · delayed deposit · deduction disallowance

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)Section 43B Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154 Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(x)section 143(1)(a)section 2(24)section 36(1)(va)section 43b section 36(1)section 43 section 36 section 139(1)section 139 section 143(1)section 13

Judgments citing 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

Mithila and Mithila Enterprise, Delhi vs. Ward 49(4) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1904/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022

Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…n’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 417; Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Ker.); Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 409 ITR 225; Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B. S. Patel Vs. DCIT 326 ITR 457. 4. Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer, CPC cannot make any disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI as the issue is highly debatable. Reliance was placed o…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Industrias Del Recambio India P Ltd., Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1237/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Jcit (Osd) V. M/S.Industrias Del- Corporate Cirlce-2(2), Recambio India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. A-7, Sipcot Industrial Growth Centre, Oragadam, Mathur Post, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram-602 105. [Pan: Aabci 3336 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Arihanth Kumar JainFor Respondent: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r does not apply to the claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1) (va) of the Act. 3.4The decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s.Unifac Management Services (India) Pvt Ltd [409 ITR 225], on similar issue, is in favour of revenue. 4 For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manu…

Waidhan Engineering &Industries Pvt . Ltd Waidhan, Singrauli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 41/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble Accountnt Member & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…or the relevant years. Reliance stands placed by it on, among others, CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj); CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), relied upon by the appellant, wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a) (or an amendment u/s. 154), the same could not be decid…

Waidhan Engineering &Industries, Singrauli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 40/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble Accountnt Member & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 44A

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

…like to refer to order in writ petition passed by Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Private Limited v. DCIT in WP no. 5264 of 2020, WMP No. 6461 of 2018, vide order dated 23.10.2018 (reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.), wherein Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court decided this issue in favour of Revenue. However, subsequently, the said decision of Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court was challenged by the tax-payer before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court by filing writ appeal no. 2854 of 2018 and CMP No. 23727 of 2018 and the Divi…

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…like to refer to order in writ petition passed by Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Private Limited v. DCIT in WP no. 5264 of 2020, WMP No. 6461 of 2018, vide order dated 23.10.2018 (reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.), wherein Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court decided this issue in favour of Revenue . However, subsequently, the said decision of Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court was challenged by the tax-payer before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court by filing writ appeal no. 2854 of 2018 and CMP No. 23727 of 2018 and the Div…

Sugandh, Moradabad vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sugandh, Vs Itd, Jawahar Market, G.M.D.Road, Cpc, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001. Bengaluru. Pan-Aaefs7109J Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2021

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sugandh, vs ITD, Jawahar Market, G.M.D.Road, CPC, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001. Bengaluru. PAN-AAEFS7109J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 30.12.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 27.07.2021. No one appeared o…

Abhay Shrivastva, Faridabad vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengalurur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1289/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Abhay Shrivastva, Vs Dcit, 501, Sears Vth Floor, Sector-86, Cpc, Faridabad, Haryana-121007. Bengaluru. Pan-Bgjps08499B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Gurjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.12.2021

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…x) of section 2(24) and sub- clause (va) of section 36(1) would not be affected by section 43B, in particular the effect of non-obstante clause. In the most recent of the decisions, Madras High Court in Unifac Management Services (India) (P.) Ltd. vs DC IT in 409 ITR 225 held that the scope of section 43B and section 36(1 )(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belatedly paid towards such contribution, 4.2.21 Despite this clear legal position that section 43B of the Act covers only…

M/S National Hospital, Jabalpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 47/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…CIT relevant years. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), relied upon by the appellant, wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a), the same could not be decided on merits. The decisions…

M\S National Hospital, Jabalpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 46/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Omega Hospital and Blood Bank, Jabalpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 36/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Omega Hospital & Blood Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Bank, Cpc, Jabalpur (M.P.) Bangalore [Pan: Aabfo 8142Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain & Sh. Kailash Chandra Agrawal (Cas) Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2021

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ed by it on the decisions in CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 2 Omega Hospital & Blood Bank v. Dy. CIT 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), relied upon by the appellant, wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and the limited scope of an adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a), the same could not be decided on merits. The decisions…

M/S. Sterling Urban Developments Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sterling Urban Developments Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, 8, Level – 5 – Prestige Nebula, Circle – 6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp To It Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., Unifac Management Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 244 42019] 260 Taxman 60/[2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad.), CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchant Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker). 7. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to s…

Everestims Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 408/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s been accepted viz., Hi-tech India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. UoI 227 ITR 446 (AP), CIT Vs. Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd., (2003) 129 Taxmann 709 (Madras)Unifac Management Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 244 42019] 260 Taxman 60/[2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad.), CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.). (iv) B.S. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 45742008] 171 Taxman 304 (MP), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 12…

Everestims Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Aspiration Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 341/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

Aspiration Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 340/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…like to refer to order in writ petition passed by Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Private Limited v. DCIT in WP no. 5264 of 2020, WMP No. 6461 of 2018, vide order dated 23.10.2018 (reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.), wherein Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court decided this issue in favour of Revenue . However, subsequently, the said decision of Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court was challenged by the tax-payer before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court by filing writ appeal no. 2854 of 2018 and CMP No. 23727 of 2018 and the Div…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…like to refer to order in writ petition passed by Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) Private Limited v. DCIT in WP no. 5264 of 2020, WMP No. 6461 of 2018, vide order dated 23.10.2018 (reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225(Mad.), wherein Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court decided this issue in favour of Revenue . However, subsequently, the said decision of Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court was challenged by the tax-payer before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court by filing writ appeal no. 2854 of 2018 and CMP No. 23727 of 2018 and the Div…

U and T Tractor Spares Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 43/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Aug 2021AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Raksha Birla (C.A.) & Shri Mohit Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Kajal Singh (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…tels Ltd, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT vs Suzlon Energy Ltd 115 Taxmann.com 340, Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs Merchem Ltd 61 Taxmann.com119 and Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Unifac Management Services (India) Pvt Ltd vs CIT 409 ITR 225. The ld DR has thus relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the details submitted by the assessee as part of its return of income, it is noted that the assessee has deposited the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF well before the…

Shishir Kumar Das, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Amravathi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 38/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Feb 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2018-19 Shishir Kumar Das, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 029. Income Tax, Pan: Aitpd 6386 K Circle-10(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue By: Shri Pavithran Kumar Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02/02/2021 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pavithran Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…in the context of section 43B of the Act and the employer’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESI. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Madras) to hold the issue against the assessee and he accordingly brought it to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Your appellant submits that the CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the addition made U/s. 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the submissions mad…