“Section 36(1)”

Ashirbad Infrastructure Ser & Faci Management Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

claimed deduction of such payment while computing its income. 9. Being of the view that the deduction claimed, being in violation of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the CPC disallowed the deduction claimed in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. Against the intimation issued ... contribution to PF and ESI were not remitted to the government account within the period prescribed under the relevant statutes governing such payment. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act makes it clear that in case employees contribution to PF and ESI are not paid within the due date prescribed

Rajendra Management Group, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-62(2), New Delhi

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

Bench: The Cit(A).

erred in the facts and in law in sustaining the addition/disallowances of Rs.90,64,370/- by holding that the amendment and explanation in section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act. 2021 is clarificatory in nature and thus it will not be applicable

Krown Agro Foods Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-14(1) C.R. Building, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

have been made u/s 143(1) of the Act as the issue was debatable. Moreover, the amendment was made w.e.f. 1.4.2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. In 3 support of his contention the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements ... 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

Brahmaputra Finlease Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

evidence that any interest bearing fund has been diverted to sister concerns or related parties without charging any interest then provisions of section 36(1)(iii) is not applicable. I, therefore, hold that the Id. CIT(A) in the instant case was not justified in sustaining the addition. I, therefore

Jagbir Singh Tewatia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2018-19

deposit of employee contribution within due date of relevant act without appreciating the fact and law that the due date referred to section 36(1 )(va) must be read with section 43B of the Act, wherein it has been provided that if 2 the assessee has made the payment before ... 36(l)(va) of the Act regarding delayed payment of employee contribution to PF and ESI by applying the amended provisions of section 36(1 )(va) and 43B of the Act retrospectively without appreciating the facts and law that such amendment brought into the statute by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f

DCIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs. Priapus Developers Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

hereinafter 1 I.T.A. No. 363/Del/2021 referred to CIT (Appeals)] New Delhi, dated 17.09.2020 in deleting the disallowance under section 14A and disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that both ... orders of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years deleted the disallowance made under section 14A and also the disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 3. The ld. DR fairly submits that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment

Acro Hr Solutions India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

considering the due dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have ... been allowed as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act when the payment was made beyond the relevant due date under the respective acts. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and later the Gujarat High Court dismissed the challenge against this order of AO. In appeal, the court