← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)3,872 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

TRF Ltd. v. CIT
323 ITR 397 · 2010 · Supreme Court
714
citing judgments

For claiming deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 144/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section 36(1)(vii). Unless amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible u/s.36(1 ... amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible under section 36(1)(vii) is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 143/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section 36(1)(vii). Unless amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible u/s.36(1 ... amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible under section 36(1)(vii) is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts

Vinod Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 76(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 41/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Rs.22,81,075/- for AY 2019-20)by disallowing the employees contribution to staff welfare schemes under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. That the additional interest charged u/s 234B and 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,37,883/- (Rs.3 ... grossly erred in raising a demand towards tax of Rs.1,73,843/- by disallowing the employees contribution to staff welfare schemes under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 5. The ld. DR submitted that in this case

Vinod Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 40/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Rs.22,81,075/- for AY 2019-20)by disallowing the employees contribution to staff welfare schemes under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. That the additional interest charged u/s 234B and 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,37,883/- (Rs.3 ... grossly erred in raising a demand towards tax of Rs.1,73,843/- by disallowing the employees contribution to staff welfare schemes under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 5. The ld. DR submitted that in this case

Vinod Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 39/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Rs.22,81,075/- for AY 2019-20)by disallowing the employees contribution to staff welfare schemes under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. That the additional interest charged u/s 234B and 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,37,883/- (Rs.3 ... grossly erred in raising a demand towards tax of Rs.1,73,843/- by disallowing the employees contribution to staff welfare schemes under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 5. The ld. DR submitted that in this case

M/S Edocs Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (CPC) `, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 146/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Edocs Solutions Ltd., Dcit, (Cpc), Transmission House, 1St Floor, Bangalore Post Bag No. 2, Vs. Plot. No. 6/19, Compound No. Electronic City, Post Office, 82, Marol Co-Op. Indl. Estate, Bangalore-560100. Near Marol Bhavan, M.V. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaece 3948 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

employee's contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as employee's contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law and clearly strictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under

Giri Bahadur, Navi Mumbai vs. WD 34(1) (4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2150/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Employees’ contribution on account of PF/ESIC made after the due date as prescribed under the relevant statutes, is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, by concluding as under: “52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer ... could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously

Rakesh Janghu, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

ITA 379/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

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

violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in placing reliance on amended provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B as per Finance Act, 2021 by concluding that these amended provisions and decision of Hon'ble SC in case of Checkmate ... Services Pvt. Ltd. apply retrospectively for sustaining disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of Rs.8,06,89,964/- in the impugned AY. Page 3 of 13 ITA Nos.379/Del/2023 & Ors C.O. Nos.191 &192/Del/2023 Rakesh Janghu vs. DCIT 5. That the Ld. AO erred both in law and on facts in assuming

DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Rakesh Janghu, Gurgaon

ITA 2675/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

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

violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in placing reliance on amended provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B as per Finance Act, 2021 by concluding that these amended provisions and decision of Hon'ble SC in case of Checkmate ... Services Pvt. Ltd. apply retrospectively for sustaining disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of Rs.8,06,89,964/- in the impugned AY. Page 3 of 13 ITA Nos.379/Del/2023 & Ors C.O. Nos.191 &192/Del/2023 Rakesh Janghu vs. DCIT 5. That the Ld. AO erred both in law and on facts in assuming

DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Rakesh Janghu, Gurgaon

ITA 2644/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

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

violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in placing reliance on amended provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B as per Finance Act, 2021 by concluding that these amended provisions and decision of Hon'ble SC in case of Checkmate ... Services Pvt. Ltd. apply retrospectively for sustaining disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of Rs.8,06,89,964/- in the impugned AY. Page 3 of 13 ITA Nos.379/Del/2023 & Ors C.O. Nos.191 &192/Del/2023 Rakesh Janghu vs. DCIT 5. That the Ld. AO erred both in law and on facts in assuming

Gravis Hospitality Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2075/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

against the disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund (P.F) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.C) under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee filed ... inter-alia, after making disallowance of Rs.19,57,906, on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to P.F. and E.S.I.C. under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Vide impugned order, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee

Strides Pharma Science Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

methodology provided under Rule 8D of the Rules as amended by Notification No. 50 1949( E) [F.NO.370142/7/2016-TPL]. 5. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), Section 37 and Section 38 of the Act amounting to INR 15,34,55,236 (Page 9 to 18 of the Final Assessment Order ... Strides Pharma Science Ltd. The Hon'ble DRP and the learned AO erred in facts and in law in making disallowance under Section 36(1)(i), Section 37 and Section 38 of the Act, and in doing so have grossly erred: 5.1 In law in holding that equity investment

Col Krishan Kumar Nanda (Retd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 688/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandraita No. 688/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Col. Krishan Kumar Nanda (Retd.), Vs Acit, Prop. M/S Tiger Force Security Circle-61(1), Services, K-316, M.B. Road, Lado New Delhi-110002 Saria, New Delhi-110030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acspn7598Q Assessee By : Sh. Vikram Kakkar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Kakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

return of income tax. 2 Col. Krishan Kumar Nanda 2. Because the CIT-A, has further failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"), thereby disallowing the claim of Rs 65,77,784/- towards payment of employee ... after due date provide under the enactment. 3. Because the CIT-A, erred in law to retrospectively apply amendment/explanation to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act as per Finance Bill, 2021 in this instant case. Therefore, the claim being correct, no addition

Bhavna Enterprise, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 487/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Bhavna Enterprise, Vs. The Adit, 30, Ambika Nagar Society, Cpc, Bengaluru Hazira Road, Ichchhapore, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer: Surat - 394510 The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfb5274K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36

Supreme Court held as follows: “30. Analysis and Conclusions: The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions ... noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1)(va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various

Sapana Anil Bhasin, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

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

ITA 1980/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhsapna Anil Bhasin Vs. Cit (Appeals) 522, B Krishna Niwas, Nfac, Delhi 3Rd Floor, R.P. Masani Road, Matunga, Maharashtra – 400019 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Acxpb1308H Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Anil BhasinFor Respondent: Prakash Kishinchandani
Section 141(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 30Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37

amount of Rs.1,54,651/-shown as Sundry Balance written off (Bad Debts) are disallowed by the Assessing Officer, that as per the section 36(1)(vii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 Expressed as: Section 36(1) (vii) subject to its proviso, explanation and subject to the provisions of section

Om Prakash, Jodhpur vs. Ld. AO Ward 3(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1713/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Om Prakash Near Mobile World Ratanada Defence Lab Road Jodhpur-342 001 Rajasthan Pan: Acpp0758B ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 254(2)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

audit report containing schedule 20(b) i.e. details of contribution received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va). As per this schedule 20(b), although assessee never bring this issue to the notice of Ld. CIT(A) and before us also, but assessee made

Idbi Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Ltu(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4596/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalidbi Bank Ltd. 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 005. Pan: Aabci8842G ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Ltu (2) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 40

provision for bad and doubtful debts account and accordingly the same ought to have been allowed as deduction based on specific provisions of section 36(1) (vii) 3. the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that in accounts where there was uncertainty of recovery of amounts, the interest not recognized ... claimed nor was allowed any deduction u/s. 36(1) (viia), in respect of any assessment year after 2013-14. The first proviso to section 36(1) (vii) restricts the deduction in respect of bad debts written off which reads as under: "Provided that in the case of an assessee

M/S. Shree Mahalaxmi Krupa Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1682/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Shree Mahalaxmi- National Faceless Appellate Centre, Krupa Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Shop No.12, National Plaza C.H.S.Ltd., Plot No.144, Takka Panvel, Raigarh, Mumbai-410 206. [Pan: Aaucs 7858 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash D. Choughule, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income of the assessee. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and sec. 43B of the Act are retrospective in effect and therefore, the employees' contribution to Provident Fund deposited by the assessee company after ... income of the assessee company. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Finance Act, 2021 has made amendments to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B with effect from 1st April, 2021 and therefore, the said amendments have no application to the pending cases of the earlier years

Ashish Dyechem & Textiles Processors Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent-Cir 4(1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1749/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madanappa, Ld
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36

provision, there can be no escape from disallowance. Turning to the facts of the case, it is clear from the mandate of section 36(1)(va) that the employees’ share in the relevant funds must be deposited before the due date under the respective Acts. If the audit report mentions ... with specific reference in column no. 20(b) having heading: `Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va)’, it is an apparent indication of the disallowance of expenditure u/s 36(1)(va) in the audit report in a case where

Ashish Dyechem & Textiles Processors Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1748/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madanappa, Ld
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36

provision, there can be no escape from disallowance. Turning to the facts of the case, it is clear from the mandate of section 36(1)(va) that the employees’ share in the relevant funds must be deposited before the due date under the respective Acts. If the audit report mentions ... with specific reference in column no. 20(b) having heading: `Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va)’, it is an apparent indication of the disallowance of expenditure u/s 36(1)(va) in the audit report in a case where