← 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)

Sodhani Sweet Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 383/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Khandelwal (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order issued U/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... contribution to the PF and ESI, not deposited by the appellant 3 Sodhani Sweet Pvt. Ltd. vs.ACIT within the due date as per section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961, cannot be allowed and accordingly, he grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed. 5. In the final result

Catwalk Worldwide Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. Direcotr of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 685/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2019-20 Catwalk Worldwide Acit, Pvt Ltd, Cpc, Bangalore Unit No. 405-408, Tanti A Jogani Industrial Premises, Vs. Jr Boricha Marg, Sitaram Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Maharashtra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc1276B

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Vora & Moksha MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. K. C. Selvamani, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

concerned, undisputedly, the assessee has deposited payment of employee’s contribution on account of PF & ESI after due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act but before the due date of filing the return. 8. We have perused the order passed ... Employees' contribution on account of PF deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act by relying upon the provisions contained under section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act having been amended vide Finance Act, 2021 wherein explanation 2 and explanation 5 have been inserted. 9. However

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrunal Parekh
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B(3)

controversial contribution of the employees' to PF/ESIC like welfare funds and to which the provision in Income Tax Law is under its Section 36(1)(va). 5.5.3 However, till any judicial decision comes as regards to the date of the applicability of the above explanation (inserted w.e.f.01.04.2021); in light

S. P. C. Infrastructure P Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle 4, Jaipur

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

ITA 121/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

been calculated. While processing the return of income at CPC, Bengaluru, the following disallowance/ addition was made. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) on Rs. 16,62,178/- account of employees contribution to PF/ESI paid beyond the due date specified under relevant Act but before ... account of delayed deposit of sum received from employees as contribution to any Provident Fund or any fund setup under ESI Act under section 36(1)(va). 5.2.1 Held: I have considered the submissions made by the appellant on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case along with

Ernst & Youg Merchant Banking Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Asst. Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Karnataka

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

ITA 224/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

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

Delhi for A.Y. 2009-10. The main ground urged by the assessee relates to addition of employees’ contribution to the provident fund under section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act. 2. The facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. The assessee herein is engaged in the business ... provident fund Act in eleven instances. The aggregate amount of the above said payments was Rs. 22,37,042/-. Accordingly in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the CPC disallowed the above said amount while processing the return of income of the assessee under section 143(1

Mr. Narayana Nippanin Rao, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1923/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalenarayana Nippanirao, Vs. Dcit, Cpc 22 Revati Nofra, Near Rc Bangalore Church, Colaba, Karnataka - 560500 Mumbai – 400005. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpr8507L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Narayana Rao.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Naina K. Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Narayana Rao.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Naina K. Kumar.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner, Appeals ("CIT-A") was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs 9,29,886 made under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) in the intimation issued under section 143(1)/154 by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income

Umberto Ceramics Int P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1661/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

order, dated 28.07.2021, passed by the CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of INR.22,37,745/- made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing of return of income in respect of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund deposited belatedly but before the due date ... been held as under: “53. The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law - in terms of section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part

S.M.S Exports, Delhi vs. CIT-24 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1838/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmas.M.S Exports Vs. Cit-24 C-174, Okhla Industrial New Delhi Area Phase-1, New Delhi-110 020 Pan No. Aabfs 9700 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.05.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

alleged delayed payment of Employees Contribution to EPF of Rs.18,28,391/- and ESI of Rs.1,11,537/- during the year under section 36(1)(va) of the Act made by Ld. ACIT. 4. That even otherwise the adjustment so made in any order of a debatable and contentions issue

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 437/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... provisions of the Act as it would not fall within the ambit of prima facie adjustments. 3. It is also submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 436/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... provisions of the Act as it would not fall within the ambit of prima facie adjustments. 3. It is also submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 435/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... provisions of the Act as it would not fall within the ambit of prima facie adjustments. 3. It is also submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein

Vs Rubber Private Limited, Meerut vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(1), Meerut

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 585/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 34Section 36Section 43Section 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

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Chanel (India) Pvt. Lvt., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2723/DEL/2022[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmadcit Vs. Chanel (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 4(2) 123, Maker Chamber Vi, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai New Delhi-400 021 Pan No. Aaccc 4140 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2023

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law on the virtue of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act such sum received by the assessee. Those amount could not have been allowed as deduction

Shivam Packaging Industriespvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

ITA 615/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay BahetiFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

concerned, undisputedly, the assessee has deposited payment of employee’s contribution on account of PF & ESI after due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act but before the due date of filing the return. 7. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue ... Employees' contribution on account of PF deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act by relying upon the provisions contained under section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act having been amended vide Finance Act, 2021 wherein explanation 2 and explanation 5 have been inserted. 9. However

Shivam Packaging Industriespvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

ITA 614/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay BehetiFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

concerned, undisputedly, the assessee has deposited payment of employee’s contribution on account of PF & ESI after due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act but before the due date of filing the return. 7. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue ... Employees' contribution on account of PF deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act by relying upon the provisions contained under section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act having been amended vide Finance Act, 2021 wherein explanation 2 and explanation 5 have been inserted. 9. However

Computronics Systems (India)P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT CPC /ACIT1(1) Indore, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 97/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicomputronics Systems (India) Acit-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan Private Limited, Indore, Madhyapradesh Plant No.91, Schemeno.53, Pin 452001 Vs. Ratnalok Colony Near Rasoma Square, Indore, M.P -452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0159C Assesseeby Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Acit-Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2023

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

learn it CIT (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal 1 Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.23,64, 533/-under section 36(1)(va) of the income tax act, 1961 made by the DCIT (CPC), Bengaluru. (2) on the facts and circumstances of the case ... learned CIT(A)NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.23,64,533/-under section 36(1)(va) of the Act made by the learned DCIT(C PC),without appreciating that the contribution to PF and ESI has been deposited on or before the due date of filing

Fair Exports(India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst/Dy/CIT/Income Tax Dept, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 304/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made of Employees Share of Provident Fund of Rs.5,33,007 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and to the computation of income under the head Business and Profession. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... payment of employees’ contribution to Fair Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.304/Mum./2022 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 as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is a private limited company

Simple Logic It Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1831/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhsimple Logic It Private Vs. Commissioner Of Income Limited, 10, Arihant, Tax (Appeals) 90 Feet Road, National Faceless Appeal Ghatkopar (E) Centre (Nfac) Maharashtra – 400077 Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aancs3390M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sanjeev Ranjan Date Of Hearing 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.08.2021 For A.Y. 2019-20. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi Erred In Disallowing Claim Of Esic & Provident Fund Even Though The Payment Was Made Within Due Date & Added It To The Total Income Of The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi Failed To Consider The Submission Given In Tabular Form Wherein The Esic & Pf Paid Date Wise Were Given. 3. The Learned Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Consider That The Appellant Has Made Payment On & Before 15/04/2019 Which Within The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1) (Va) & Much More Prior To Due Date Of Filling Of Roi As The Due Date For The Ay 2019-20 Which Was Extended To 31/10/2019 & Therefore The Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction Of Payment For Esic & Provident Fund Provident. 4. The Learned Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Consider Various Judgements Covering The Subject Matter.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sanjeev Ranjan
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

received from the employees within the due date is required to be verified by the assessing officer in accordance with the provision of section 36(1)(va) of the act and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Servies Pvt. Ld. as referred supra

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralizied Processing Centre., Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 596/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.596/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2018-19) Dow Chemical Assistant Director Of Internation P. Ltd. Income Tax, Unit No. 801, 8Th Floor, Centralized Processing बिधम/ Bldg No. 09, Gigaplex Ttc Centre, Bangalore- 560 500 Vs. Industrial Area, Midc, Airoli, S.O. Navi Mumbai 400 708 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaacd4467B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Anish Thacker, Lekh Mehta प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2023

For Appellant: Anish Thacker, Lekh MehtaFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 361

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, out of addition made of INR 1,08,01,691 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, addition of amount of INR 99,08,357 should not have been made, being paid within the due date 3 I.T.A ... made in tax audit report as based on certain judicial precedence, the addition of employees' contribution to provident funds was not sustainable under section 36(1)(va) if payment is made on or before the due date for filing the return. It is only after the order received from

Krown Bakers (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-14(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismised

ITA 2617/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

employees contribution to PE and ESI were not paid within due date prescribed under the relevant statutes governing such payments in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), made adjustment by adding back to the income of the assessee. Though