← 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 Mantra Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-CPC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 510/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2018-2019
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)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 438, 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

S Zhaveri Pharmakem Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

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

ITA 254/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S S Zhaveri Pr. Cit-8, Pharmakem Pvt. Ltd., The Asstt. Cit, Circle-8(2)(2), Vs. 109, Shiv Smruti Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chambers, 49, Dr. Annie Mumbai-400020. Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan No. Aajcs 0402 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Vasanti Patel Revenue By : Mihita Nair Sr Dr : Date Of Hearing 03/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Mihita Nair Sr DR
Section 202Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in failing to appreciate that amendments 3. The CIT (A) erred in failing to appreciate that amendments to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance to section 36(1 ... that the said amendments to section 2021 itself stated that the said amendments to section 2021 itself stated that the said amendments to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act will take effect from 1S 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act will take effect

M/S. Centrum Microcredit Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT Centralized Processsing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1602/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Centrum Microcredit Ltd., Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 801, Centrum House, Cpc, Bengaluru-560500. Vs. Vidyanangari, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. Pan No. Aafcn 3506 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ravikant S. Pathak Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant S. PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Employee's Employee's State State Insurance Insurance Corporation (SIC) aggregating to Rs.55,845/ Corporation (SIC) aggregating to Rs.55,845/- under section under section 36(1)(va) r.w. section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ) r.w. section 2(24)(x) of the Income ... erred in holding that the amendment made to (b) The CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature section 36(1

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6718/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6718/Mum/2012 (िन.व. 2008-09) Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As ‘Vodafone Essar Limited’) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 7(3), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate With S/Shri Vibhu Jain & A.K.Jawadwala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By :Shri Anand Mohan, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate with S/Shri Vibhu Jain and A.K.JawadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 80I

contention of the Revenue is that the assets acquired by the assessee are for expansion of the existing business, hence, proviso to section 36(1)(iii) of the Act gets attracted, consequently, interest paid on such borrowed capital is not allowable u/s. 36(1

Kamal Dixit, Haryana vs. AO Ward-2, Sonepat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 846/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Kamal Dixit, Vs Ao, 240, Vpo-Bhainsra Wali, Ward-2, Ballabgarh, Sonepat. Faridabad, Haryana – 121 004. Pan: Astpd3725G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.846/Del/2022 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1035026042(1) Dated 23.08.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 23.03.2020 By The Ld. Acit, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. At The Outset, We Find That The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Before Us Is Delayed By 189 Days. In View Of The Relaxation Provided By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Light Of Covid 19 Pandemic, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Revenue by observing 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 ... later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there

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

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 94/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. RuniPal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

READY ROTI INDIA PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 1. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which provides that the definition of due dates as per section 43B is deemed never to have been ... Sanjay Porwal Vs. CPC, Bengaluru/ ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur ITA No.63/JP/22 order dt. 06.04.2022 (Jaipur) (Trib.) 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

Ravi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 7, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 72/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Itr. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Of Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,995/- Being Double Addition Of Speculative Income.’’

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR ‘’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 ... later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there

A September Home Lifestyle Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 40/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Due Date Of Deposit As Mentioned In Relevant Act Despite The Fact That The Amount Was Deposited In The Relevant Fund Before Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return Under Income Tax Act, 1961.’’

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

that the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.3,29,795/- in view of introduction of explanations to the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by Finance Bill 2021 which should be allowed. 3.4 On the other hand ... supra) is reproduced 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

Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Dholakia, Junagadh vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

ITA 15/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

from the Range Head to this effect that while finalizing the assessment, the Assessing Officer allowed interest expenses of Rs.11,40,147/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act against interest income of Rs.80,29,679/- of the assessee in the status of a partner in the firm ... assessee claimed and was allowed bank overdraft interest expenses of Rs.11,40,147/-. In fact, deduction of interest expenses is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of the business. However, the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record

Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Dholakia, Junagadh vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

ITA 14/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

from the Range Head to this effect that while finalizing the assessment, the Assessing Officer allowed interest expenses of Rs.11,40,147/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act against interest income of Rs.80,29,679/- of the assessee in the status of a partner in the firm ... assessee claimed and was allowed bank overdraft interest expenses of Rs.11,40,147/-. In fact, deduction of interest expenses is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of the business. However, the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record

Swastic Oil Industries, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 35/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

thus made disallowance by holding that the employees contribution towards PF/ESI is governed by the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act and not by the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. 2.2 In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action ... supra) is reproduced 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

Swastic Oil Industires, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 34/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

thus made disallowance by holding that the employees contribution towards PF/ESI is governed by the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act and not by the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. 2.2 In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action ... supra) is reproduced 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

Dynasty Modular Furnitures Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 99/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

whether the addition made by the AO on account of employees contribution to ESI and PF by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24(x) of the Act was correct or not. (ii) The claim of the appellant as per the written submission that ... supra) is reproduced 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

Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 591/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvijay Bag Singh Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Rajpurohit Plot No. 4, Income Tax, Vikas Bunglow Behind Cpc Bengaluru Bahari Petrol Pump, 560100 Sion, Trombay Road Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adqpr7848L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vipul Shriyan Respondent By : Vranda U Matkari Date Of Hearing 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 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 27.12.2022 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Commissioner Of Income Appeals National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Ld Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding Disallowance Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1001 (The Act) By Cpc, Bengaluru Under Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act In Respect Of Employees Contribution Made To The Provided Fund & Other Funds Which Was Paid After The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Law But Before The End Of The Financial Year & Due Date Of Filling Return Of Income Is Covered U/S 430 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cita Erred In Noting That The Hearing Notices Were Remained Uncompiled While The Appellant Had Uploaded Request For Adjournment Against Notice Dated

For Appellant: Vipul ShriyanFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 430Section 44A

case and in law the Commissioner of Income Appeals National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Ld CIT(A)) erred in upholding disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1001 (the Act) by CPC, Bengaluru under intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act in respect of employees contribution made

Newage Fire Protection Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. National Faceless Appeal, Mumbai

ITA 487/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

said amount of contribution to ESIC and PF is not paid within due date u/s. 36 (1) (va) although the amendment made in section 36 (1)(va) by Finance Act 21 is prospective in nature and cannot apply retrospectively. 2. The learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming addition made ... making total addition of Rs.4,30,540/- & Rs.3,38,093/- for A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively on account of disallowance under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of delay in depositing employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund (PF), Employee’s State

Newage Fire Protection Engineers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeas National Faceless Appeal, Mumbai

ITA 486/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

said amount of contribution to ESIC and PF is not paid within due date u/s. 36 (1) (va) although the amendment made in section 36 (1)(va) by Finance Act 21 is prospective in nature and cannot apply retrospectively. 2. The learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming addition made ... making total addition of Rs.4,30,540/- & Rs.3,38,093/- for A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively on account of disallowance under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of delay in depositing employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund (PF), Employee’s State

Sila Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore, Mumbai

ITA 813/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Sila Solutions Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax-Cpc, 3Rd Floor, A-301, Bangalore, Neelam Centre, Karnataka – 560 500 Vs. Baburao Pendharkar Marg, Glaxo, Worli, Mumbai City– 400 030 Pan: Aancs3675D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(2)(va)

assessee company has made delayed payment of employees’ contribution on account of PF & ESIC contribution after due date prescribed under the Act under section 36(1)(va) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing the return. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee company challenging ... contribution on account of PF & ESIC 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

Angadpal Industries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 273/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) & Employee’s State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to the tune of Rs.5,35,687/- under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act, by the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru 3 M/s. Angadpal Industries Pvt. Ltd. [Assessing ... assessee company has made delayed payment of employees’ contribution on account of PF & ESIC contribution after due date prescribed under the Act under section 36(1)(va) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing the return. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee company challenging

Shamim Akhtar Abdul Khaliq Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(1) (2) CPC, Mumbai

ITA 152/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Makhija, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, D.R
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

year under consideration, deposited after due date prescribed under the PF/ESIC Act and thereby made the addition of Rs.24,12,228/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. Thereafter the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act before ... contribution on account of PF & ESIC 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

Newage Fire Protection Industries Pvt .Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2141/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

Income as per section 43 8 but paid after the due date of the respective Acts. 2. The legislative amendments incorporated in section 36(1) (va) and 438 of the act by the Finance Act 2021 by inserting explanation 2 and explanation 5 to the respective provisions are prospective ... assessee company has made delayed payment of employees’ contribution on account of PF & ESIC contribution after due date prescribed under the Act under section 36(1)(va) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing the return. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee company challenging