← 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)

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Jao Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

ITA 64/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Batps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Jao-Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Employees Contribution to ESI/PF paid before filing of return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Commissioner ... employer deposits the same after the due date prescribed under the relevant Provident Fund/ESI Act. The bare reading of section 36(1)(va) makes it clear that deduction is available only if such sum is credited by the employer to the employees' account in the relevant fund or funds

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

neither made any query in this regard nor examined the case of disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. The FAO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) on 01.02.2021 (supra), without making any addition on this ... disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of 7 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, due to lack of enquiry and due to incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts, the assessment order is erroneous

R.K. Carriers India Private Limited, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2014-15 R.K. Carriers India Private The Acit, Limited, 4 Laxmi Nagar, Subcity V Circle-1, Centre Chouraha, Sector No. 8, S Udaipur (Raj.) Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Raj.)- 313001 Pan: Aadcr8681E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 29.08.2022 Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Passed By Acit, Circle-1, Udaipur For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Has Grossly Erred In Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 308827.00 Made On Account Of Delayed Statutory Payment Of Employee Contribution Of Pf As Per The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act, 1961 As Per His Convenience. Therefore, The Action Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Unwarranted, Against The Principles Of Natural Justice, Illegal & Unjustified & The Disallowance So Made & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Deleted. R.K. Carriers India Private Ltd. 2. That The Appellant Reserves His Rights To Add, To Alter Or To Modify Any Grounds Of The Appeal On Or Before Hearing Of The Same.”

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

confirming the disallowance of Rs. 308827.00 made on account of delayed statutory payment of employee contribution of PF as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 as per his convenience. Therefore, the action of the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is unwarranted, against

ACIT Circle-54(1), New Delhi vs. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, New Delhi

ITA 3555/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Herin Mehta, CA, ShFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 10Section 14ASection 2Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(5)(d)Section 72Section 80

interest expenditure to the extent attributable to the tie-up advances is held by the A.O. as not allowable under the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act as the amount was not used for the purpose of business. The claim of interest National Agricultural Cooperative ... interest expenditure to the extent attributable to the tie-up advances is held by the A.O . not allowable under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act as the amount is not used for the purpose of business. The claim of interest National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing

ACIT Circle-54(1), New Delhi vs. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, New Delhi

ITA 3554/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Herin Mehta, CA, ShFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 10Section 14ASection 2Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(5)(d)Section 72Section 80

interest expenditure to the extent attributable to the tie-up advances is held by the A.O. as not allowable under the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act as the amount was not used for the purpose of business. The claim of interest National Agricultural Cooperative ... interest expenditure to the extent attributable to the tie-up advances is held by the A.O . not allowable under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act as the amount is not used for the purpose of business. The claim of interest National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing

ACIT Circle-54(1), New Delhi vs. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, New Delhi

ITA 3553/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Herin Mehta, CA, ShFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 10Section 14ASection 2Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(5)(d)Section 72Section 80

interest expenditure to the extent attributable to the tie-up advances is held by the A.O. as not allowable under the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act as the amount was not used for the purpose of business. The claim of interest National Agricultural Cooperative ... interest expenditure to the extent attributable to the tie-up advances is held by the A.O . not allowable under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act as the amount is not used for the purpose of business. The claim of interest National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-32(1), New Delhi

ITA 3000/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Herin Mehta, CA, ShFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 10Section 14ASection 2Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(5)(d)Section 72Section 80

interest expenditure to the extent attributable to the tie-up advances is held by the A.O. as not allowable under the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act as the amount was not used for the purpose of business. The claim of interest National Agricultural Cooperative ... interest expenditure to the extent attributable to the tie-up advances is held by the A.O . not allowable under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act as the amount is not used for the purpose of business. The claim of interest National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing

Bec Projects Ltd., Bhilai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 06/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Bec Projects Limited 4/5, Industrial Estate, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan : Aaacb9275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

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 ... prescribed time — by way of contribution of the employees' share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers' contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited

Regal Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1737/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V.H. JariwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

under section 143(3) of the Act the only addition made by the AO was in respect of disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO initiated the rectification proceedings on the basis of incorrectly carrying forward and setting off of losses

Dedha India Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 268/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

captioned appeal relates to Assessment Years 2019-20 involving issue of disallowance of expenditure towards employees contribution to ESIC/PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. I.T.A. No.268/Del/2023 2 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of man power supply and has filed the return ... considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. for the proposed

M/S Veejay Facility Management Pvt. Ltd, Panaji vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

hence the order is bad in law. 3) There have been various case decisions including by High Court holding that provision of section 36(1)(va) should be interpreted in the same way as that of section 43B and that delayed contribution of employees towards PF and ESI should ... Assessing Officer and CIT (appeals) have not followed these judgments. 4) The CIT (appeals) has erroneously interpreted that the amendment introduced in section 36(1)(va) by Finance Act, 2021 is retrospective in nature, ignoring the memorandum of object presented to the parliament at the time of introduction

M/S Leisure Export Worldwide, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 246Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

case, Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in law in concluding that explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and explanation 5 to section 43 B of the Act inserted by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f ... case, Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in law in concluding that explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and explanation 5 to section 43 B of the Act inserted by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f

Bhupinder Singh Julka, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1807/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 80T

cost of asset and not allowed as deduction Income. ITA No.-1807/Del/2022 Bhupinder Singh Julka Tax act also sustainable this in Section 36(1)(ii). The submission of the assessee is not accepted as the assessee has not received this sum in lieu of the capital asset. The asset

M/S. Action Batteries Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 124/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 36(1)

appellant argued that there was no reason for the ld. CIT(A) to disallow the same by invoking the provisions of section 36(1) of the Act. It is noted that the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed a single word on the other grounds raised by the appellant before

Jagson International Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-13(1), Delhi

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

ITA 902/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 407

Madhav Prasad Jatia V. CIT, (SC) 118 ITR 200 has established that the expression "for the purposes of Business & Profession" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression occurring in Section 57(iii), meaning thereby that the scope for allowing a deduction under Section 36 ... under Section 57(iii). This phrase, as held in many legal pronouncements, is the most important yardstick for the allowability of deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. While explaining the meaning of this phrase, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

JCIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1303/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 407

Madhav Prasad Jatia V. CIT, (SC) 118 ITR 200 has established that the expression "for the purposes of Business & Profession" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression occurring in Section 57(iii), meaning thereby that the scope for allowing a deduction under Section 36 ... under Section 57(iii). This phrase, as held in many legal pronouncements, is the most important yardstick for the allowability of deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. While explaining the meaning of this phrase, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Maharishi Ayurveda Products Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1054/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshmaharishi Ayurveda Products Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), Flat No. 40, Pocket-H, Delhi Ground Floor, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccm5403A Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Garg, Fca Sh. Akarsh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Raja Rajeshwari R, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04/08/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Garg, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Raja Rajeshwari R, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

BECAUSE the "Pr. CIT" has erred in law and on facts in holding that- (i) in view of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, the assessee has to make payment of employees contribution before the due date as per the relevant ... assessment. He further contended that ld. PCIT has grossly erred in law and on facts in view of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, the assessee has to make payment of employees contribution before the due date as per the relevant

Abhay Chordia, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 291/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

appreciate that section 43B of the IT Act has a non-obstante clause and accordingly it has precedence over the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act. e. Various High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court have held that as section 43B starts with a non-obstante ... clause, it overrides section 36(1)(va), and that no disallowance can be made if the sums are paid prior to the due date u/s. 139(1). f. That the appellant craves leave to submit that amendment in section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act by way of insertion

Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt Ltd, Bandra East Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 270/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 2(24)Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) upheld the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act due to delayed payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.C.). Therefore ... Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal was regarding the disallowance on account of alleged delay in payment of P.F./E.S.I.C. under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act. While deciding the aforesaid issue, the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal following its earlier decision

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur vs. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 96/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 96/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

funds, viz. Employee’s Provident fund (EPF) and Employee’s State Insurance (ESI) is liable to be disallowed as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. 13. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ... that the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards EPF & ESI is liable to be disallowed as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that the employee’s share of contribution towards