“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)

Sri Ranga Motors, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 179/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

1). He further contended that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the amendments made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 i.e.A.Y.2022-23 and do not apply for the years under consideration. He further contended that the assessee ... employees contribution of EPF and ESI paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act and these various funds are referred in section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The information gives the details of due date of payment, actual date of payment to the concerned authorities and these

Eastern Warehouse Corporation, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 175/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

Tetali Anil Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 174/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

Assyst International Pvt Ltd, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Circle1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 898/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Assyst International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle -1(1) Kochi Ii/138-D, Nh -47, Muttam Thaikkattukkara P.O. Kochi 683106 Pan – Aadca0592R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. K.Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 .03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20. 2. There Is Delay Of ‘64’ Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Also An Affidavit Of Cfo Of The Assessee Company Stating, Therein, The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of Reason Stating For Affidavit For Late Filing Of This Appeal, We Are View That There Is ‘Sufficient Cause’ & No Latches Can Be Attributable To The Assessee. Hence, We Condon Delay Of ‘64’ Days In Filing This Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Of The Same On Merits.

For Appellant: Ms. K.Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

1) of the Act adding an amount of Rs.4,31,783/- on account of disallowance on account of late payment of PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act under the respective Act. 5. Aggrieved by the said disallowance the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority

M/S Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Aluva vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 876/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Acit, Vs. Xvi, Keezhmad Panchayat, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Ashokapuram,Aluva, Kochi – 682 018. Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 101. Pan :Aafck 1498 J Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Manu Kurian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchant Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) which was to the effect that Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B(b) operate on totally different equilibriums and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked ... 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

Kavungal Vareed Itteera, Kerala vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 855/COCH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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

Fedbank Financial Services Limited, Ernakulam vs. The DCIT Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 838/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. K. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashanth V.K., CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

respect to provisions for bad and doubtful debts/advances was extended to NBFCs by the Finance Act, 2016...the necessary amendment was made in section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act with effect from the AY 2017-18 onwards... however there is a view that no deduction is allowable under ... amount of Rs.1,62,16,125 under any other disallowance in the ITR filed for AY 2017-18... as such amount claimed under section 36(1)(viia) is only Rs.5,83,000/ - (Rs.3,38,000/- towards Provision for Loss assets and Rs.2,45,000/ - towards Provision for Doubtful debts

Vajra Rubber Products Private Limited, Thrissur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Preetha Shenoy, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 250Section 40A(7)

assessee is sponsored by UCO Bank, a Govt. of India Undertaking and duly complied with the conditions laid down for approval under Section 36(1)(v). At-least the AO when this factum was brought to his notice that the assessee has filed copy of the trust-deed, application

K M Automobiles, Korba vs. Income Tax Officer -1, Korba

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

ITA 100/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 100/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 K M Automobiles Plot No.187, Transport Nagar, Korba, Chhatisgarh-495 677 Pan: Aanfk0386L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

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

state insurance fund of Rs1,64,468 as the said contribution were remitted after the due date specified under the relevant Act under section 36(1)(va). 1.2. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in not following the ratio of the decisions, among others, of the Supreme Court ... Corporation Ltd v CIT (2016) 71 taxmann.com 247 (Pat). 1.3. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in interpreting the amendments made in section 36(1)(va) of the Act vide the Finance Act 2021 as retrospective in nature. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in not appreciating that

M/S Western India Ceramics P. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commr. Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, ground number 4 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 14/RJT/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Reliance Industries Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim under section 36(1)(iii) taking a view that interest would not have been payable to banks if funds were not provided to subsidiaries, in view of fact that

Madaan Associates, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 974/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

loans having been given out of interest free funds, the 3 Madaan Associates interest on the same is not to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 29.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.NIL. The same has been assessed

Meeta Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(8), New Delhi

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

ITA 1793/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2019-20 Meeta Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O Jain & Malhotra, Ward-68(8), 117, Inderprakash Building, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Axops3464K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2023 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Invoking Section 50C Of The I.T Act Without Following The Proper Procedure Laid Down In The Act. The Action Of The Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal, Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Confirming The Addition On Account Of Deemed Capital Gain Amounting To Rs.9,50,000/-. The Action Of The Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal,' Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Enhancing The Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The Income Tax Act. The Action Of The Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal, Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed. The Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Submit, Alter Or Withdraw Any Or All Grounds Of Appeal Before Or On The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 50C

expressed any view in this order, on whether the aforesaid amendments brought in by Finance Act, 2021 [whereby Explanation-2 was inserted in Section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act and Explanation-5 was inserted in Section 43B of Income Tax Act] are prospective or retrospective. In the light

M/S Tesla Transformers (India) Ltd, Bhopal vs. ACIT 3(1) Bhopal, Bhopal

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

ITA 190/IND/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Tesla Transformers Acit 3(1) (India) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagct 8705 J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2023

Section 115BSection 143(1)

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

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 92C

dismissed. 16. In ground no. 3, the Revenue has challenged deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.1,41,63,945 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 17. Briefly, the facts are, in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had availed loan ... ground no.4, the Revenue has raised the issue of deletion of disallowance of Rs.8,95,765, being delayed payment of ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 22. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee fairly conceded that the issue has to be decided against the assessee

Hi-Tech Instruments & Systems, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 15/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.15/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2019-20) Hi-Tech Instruments & Control Vs. Income Tax Officer, Systems, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadfh 9770 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri D. Madhusudhana Rao, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri D. Madhusudhana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that amendments brought in Finance Act, 2021 in the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act shall be applicable w.e.f 1/4/2021. Thus, Explanation-2 and Explantion-5 in section 36(1)(va) and section ... that since the assessee has not deposited the employees contribution to the respective fund account on the date as prescribed in Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO was just, proper and reasonable, therefore, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A)- NFAC rightly

Ocean Exim India Private Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 37/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Prabha Rana (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 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. 4. Being aggrieved by the order issued U/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... observing as under:- “8. I view of the aforesaid, it is amply clear that even prior to insertion of Explanation 2 in section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 in section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, section 43B will not apply to employees contributions

Shri Rajkot District Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Rajkot, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 36(1)(viii)

that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee ... have been rejected by him. The Ld. Pr. CIT thereafter proceeded to compute the claim of the assessee for special reserve as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, computing the same at Rs.2.26 crores as opposed to Rs.4.94 crores claimed by the assessee. He accordingly found 3 Shri

Shri Arun Kumar Shrivastava, Indore vs. Asstt, Director of Income Tax, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 99/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Nimar Motors P. Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, Jetapur Sanawad Road Bangalore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccn 9368 D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Smt. Chhaya Balwani Dcit, Cpc, Green Height, Bangalore Vs. 27, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpb 5766 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Rohit Panchal Dcit, Cpc, 47, Roop Ram Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Manik Bagh, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Amvpp 7291 D Assessee By Shri Hiresh Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

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

audit report regarding inadmissibility of claim with respect to contributions received from the employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act, it would be useful to reproduce section 143(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return ... 36(1)(va) of the Act, does not require the auditor to make any specific observation regarding admissibility of the amount under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. At the same time, when we observe several other parts of the tax audit report viz. serial number 21(b)-amounts

Smt Cjjaya Balwani, Bhopal vs. The Cpo, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 330/IND/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

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

Shri Rohit Panchal, Indore vs. The DCIT-CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 203/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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