CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.

350 ITR 327High Court2013#170 most cited

What is CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. authority for?

Deduction for employee contributions to EPF/ESI is allowable under section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), irrespective of the due dates under the respective welfare fund statutes.

425

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. · 350 ITR 327 · Section 43B · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 139(1) · EPF ESI deduction · employee contribution · due date payment · Himachal Pradesh High Court · Provident Fund · Employees’ State Insurance

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158besection 113section 92fclarificatory amendmentretrospective amendmentsection 158bbsection 158bsection 36(1)(va)section 158section 43bsection 132asection 36(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.

Yogesh Vitthaldas Rathi, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 549/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Maheshwari – (Sl. No.1)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…p before this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai (supra) wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted herein under :- “4. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on merits. 5.…

M/S Shraddha Properties, Solapur vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 539/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Maheshwari – (Sl. No.1)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…p before this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai (supra) wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted herein under :- “4. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on merits. 5.…

Tilokchand Bhabutmal Shah, Solapur vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 538/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Maheshwari – (Sl. No.1)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…p before this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai (supra) wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted herein under :- “4. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on merits. 5.…

Sanjeevani Criticare and Research Centre P Ltd, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengalur, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 548/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Maheshwari – (Sl. No.1)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…p before this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai (supra) wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted herein under :- “4. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on merits. 5.…

Saatvik Food, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 513/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.513/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Saatvik Food, The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru. Shahi Bhoj C 2, Hotel Vs Sparkling Pearl Town Centre, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431005. Pan: Admfs 7887 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’) In Relation To The Assessment Year 2019-20 Dated 19.08.2021. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Rs.3,05,314/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On Account Of Late Deposit Of The Employees’ Share Of Epf & Esi.

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…uction under section 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed under section 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 4.1 The ITAT Pune Bench in ITA No.112/PUN/2022 Sunita Suresh Jadhav vs. ITO order dated 21.03.2022 has held that no disallowance is warranted as the amounts were deposited before due…

Machindra Eknath Mitthe, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 504/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.504/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Machindra Eknath Mitthe, The Acit, Cpc, Bangalore 198, Shraddha Residency, Vs Prasad Netra Hospital, Samarth Nagar, Aurangabad – 431001. Pan: Aofpm 9122 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’) In Relation To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 28.09.2021. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Rs.38,75,425/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On Account Of Late Deposit Of The Employees’ Share Of Epf & Esi Etc.

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…uction under section 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed under section 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 4.1 The ITAT Pune Bench in ITA No.112/PUN/2022 Sunita Suresh Jadhav vs. ITO order dated 21.03.2022 has held that no disallowance is warranted as the amounts were deposited before due…

Keshardeep Pressings, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 503/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.503/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Keshardeep Pressings, The Acit, Cpc. D-12, Midc Area, Waluj, Vs Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aaffk 5119 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’) In Relation To The Assessment Year 2019-20 Dated 26.08.2021. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Rs.3,88,716/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On Account Of Late Deposit Of The Employees’ Share Of Epf & Esi Etc.

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…uction under section 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed under section 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 4.1 The ITAT Pune Bench in ITA No.112/PUN/2022 Sunita Suresh Jadhav vs. ITO order dated 21.03.2022 has held that no disallowance is warranted as the amounts were deposited before due…

M/S Kudos, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 401/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.401/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…gments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 3 M/s. Kudos 5. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing that the provisions of secti…

Mohd Haseeb, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Range 6(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 76/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jun 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Mohd. Haseeb V. The Ito 551 Jha, Ram Nagar Range 6(2) Kanpur Road, Alambagh Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abcph6980P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because Without Considering The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.23,88,734/- Under Section 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Being Delay In Deposition Of Employees Share Of Provident Fund. 2. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Impugned Addition/Allowance Assessment Order Are Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…ugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supr…

Ryders Equestrian Products Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 127/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ryders Equestrain Products V. The Dy. Cit Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1)(I) 50-A, 150, Feet Road Jajmau Lucknow Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr3352B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.9.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…ugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supr…

Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Central Circle 13, Delhi

ITA 27/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 27/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., Vs Adit, 7/56, Desh Bandhu Gupta Cpc, Road, Karol Bagh, Central Delhi, Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4873C Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…dh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167 , Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (sup…

Vrundavan Enterprises, Daund vs. Additional Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 483/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.482 & 483/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e stipulated for filing returns u/s 139(1) of the Act. In our opinion, this issue is no more res integra in view of several judgments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 4. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing that the provisions of section 43B shall not…

Vrundavan Enterprises, Daund vs. Additional Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 482/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.482 & 483/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e stipulated for filing returns u/s 139(1) of the Act. In our opinion, this issue is no more res integra in view of several judgments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 4. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing that the provisions of section 43B shall not…

Winjit Technologies P Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 204/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.204/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Winjit Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-1, C1/1, A Road Nice, Midc, Nashik Satpur, Nashik – 422 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aaacw5333M Appellant Respondent

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n, this issue is no more res integra in view of several judgments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 5. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) 3 Winjit Technologies Private Limited providing that…

Pravin Joshi, Dehradum vs. Income-Tax Officer -11 (4), Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 487/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune23 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.487/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n, this issue is no more res integra in view of several judgments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 7. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing that the provisions of section 43B shall not…

Prashant Arun Sangai, Nashik vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 466/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.466/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…res integra in view of several judgments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble 3 Prashant Arun Sangai (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 6. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing that the provisions of section 43B shall not…

Vikas Vilasrao Kurade (HUF), Pune vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 417/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…gments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 3 Vikas Vilasrao Kurade (HUF) 5. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing that the pr…

Swach Pune Seva Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 407/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.407/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on, this issue is no more res integra in view of several judgments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 3 Swach Pune Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit 5. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing…

Saraswati Publishing Company P Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 376/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.376/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…in view of several judgments 3 Saraswati Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 6. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing that the provisions of section 43B shall not…

Shankar Morappa & Co, Pune vs. Centralized Prodeedings Centre (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 405/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.405/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e res integra in view of several judgments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but 3 Shankar Morappa & Co. before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 6. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing that the provisions of section 43B shall not…