“Section 36(1)”

Ashida Electronics Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalashida Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. A-308, Ashida House, Road No.21, Wagle Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan: Aabca5020G ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Centralized Processing Center, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru-560500 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Utkarsha Bhanap Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

jurisdictional High court is a mistake. 9. Further both the lower authorities relied upon the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B. As per Ld. CIT(A) this amendment is curative in nature and retrospective in application. 10. On this issue jurisdictional ITAT

Allwyn Joseph Sequeira, Mumbai vs. CPC Income Tax Dept., Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A), NFAC) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 15,88,383/- under section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 1.1. Under the facts and in law CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition ... Bombay). 1.4. Under the facts and in law, CIT(A), NFAC erred in stating that the amendment brought by Finance Act. 2021 in section 36(1)(va) of the Act and section 438 of the Act are retrospective in nature as these provisions create liability for the appellant and therefore

Jasbir Singh Kaberwal, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

delayed payment in column 20(b) were delayed payments of contributions received from the employees for various funds, as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis the respective statute, but not vis-à-vis the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judicial precedents in support ... jurisdictional High Courts. Such conduct, according to the learned counsel, is impermissible. Finally, his next plea is that the insertion of Explanations to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B, by the Finance Bill 2021, is prospective in nature, and, accordingly, so far as the period prior to 1st April

Jasbir Singh Kaberwal, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

delayed payment in column 20(b) were delayed payments of contributions received from the employees for various funds, as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis the respective statute, but not vis-à-vis the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judicial precedents in support ... jurisdictional High Courts. Such conduct, according to the learned counsel, is impermissible. Finally, his next plea is that the insertion of Explanations to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B, by the Finance Bill 2021, is prospective in nature, and, accordingly, so far as the period prior to 1st April

Lodha Developers Ltd.(Successor to Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lokhandwala Construction Inds Ltd 260 ITR 579 the same were rendered before the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) has been inserted vide Finance Act 2003. 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case ... year for which it belongs to and the year in which it is incurred. Therefore the claim of assessee is supported by Section 36 (1) (iii) of the act being interest pertaining to stock in trade. The learned assessing officer did not agree with the contention of the assessee

Duck Creek Technologies India LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 26 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

erred in disallowing INR 47,201 on account of delayed remittance of employees contribution towards provident fund without considering the provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act 5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the above said amount without considering favourable judicial ... deduction for employees' contribution to PF and ESI was allowed when the actual payment was made beyond the due date of under section 36(1)(va) of the Act but before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act Levy of incorrect

Alia Premedia Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs 1, 58, 00,000 under section 36(1)(ii) treating the payment of bonus to be excessive and capital in nature. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in treating ... bonus paid to managing director for services rendered with dividend for the purpose of section 36(1)(ii) 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in making disallowance without considering commercial expediency and reasons which lead to payment of bonus 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Hindustan Construction Company, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-6, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Him When Factually The Representative Of The Appellant Had Appeared & Also Made Written Submissions.

Appellant wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, the Assessing Officer could not have arrived at a conclusion that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act warranted. In our view, the facts on record clearly showed that the Appellant held interest bearing funds during the relevant

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

disallowance of Rs 4,24,634 on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees' contribution for the provident fund, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, particularly when there are judgments of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court permitting such a deduction. Learned ... delayed payment in column 20(b) were delayed payments of contributions received from the employees for various funds, as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis the respective statute, but not vis-à-vis the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judicial precedents in support

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

disallowance of Rs 4,24,634 on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees' contribution for the provident fund, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, particularly when there are judgments of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court permitting such a deduction. Learned ... delayed payment in column 20(b) were delayed payments of contributions received from the employees for various funds, as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis the respective statute, but not vis-à-vis the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judicial precedents in support

Adarsh Chamanlal Kaul, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaladarsh Chamanlal Kaul 10Th Floor 2, It Park, Techniplex Ii, Junction Of Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062 Pan: Ahrpk7595A ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cpc Bangaluru Pin-560500. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sunil G. Rohra Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Nfac’) Dated 26.08.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, Faa Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Providing A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard In The Course Of Faceless Hearing To The Appellant Without Appreciating The Facts That Submissions Couldn'T Be Uploaded Due To Non- Functional/ Technical Glitches On The Income Tax Portal Since 1St June 2021 Onwards".

paid before due date of furnishing the return of the income under sub-section (1) of section 139 by invoking the provisions of section 36(1) (va) read with amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 of I.T. Act., 1961." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... jurisdictional High court is a mistake. 9. Further both the lower authorities relied upon the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B. As per Ld. CIT(A) this amendment is curative in nature and retrospective in application. 10. On this issue jurisdictional ITAT

ACIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

situation, then such debts could not be included for the purposes of (a) to (d) and resultantly should have been taken to section 36(1)(vii)/(via) of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion hereinabove, the contentions and submissions of the assessee ... without appreciating the fact that the issue of these Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments (IPDI) do not qualify as 'borrowing' for the purposes of section 36(1)(iii) as the right to redeem these bonds does not lie with the lender at any given point of time?” Ground

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Asst. CIT Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

situation, then such debts could not be included for the purposes of (a) to (d) and resultantly should have been taken to section 36(1)(vii)/(via) of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion hereinabove, the contentions and submissions of the assessee ... without appreciating the fact that the issue of these Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments (IPDI) do not qualify as 'borrowing' for the purposes of section 36(1)(iii) as the right to redeem these bonds does not lie with the lender at any given point of time?” Ground

Radhakrishna Devanna Nayak, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleradhakrishna Devanna Vs. Nfac, New Delhi Nayak, 249, Matrupriti, Hingwala Lane, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400077. Pan/Gir No. : Aaapn4093Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

reported to be ‘due date’ in column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression ‘due date’ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that ... just a factual report about the fact of payments and the fact of the due date as per the Explanation to Section 36(1)(va). This due date, however, has not Radhakrishna Devanna Nayak., Mumbai. been found to be decisive in the light of the law laid down

M/S Wavell Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

than the loans and advances given to the related parties without charging interest. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹1,01,20374/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. ITA nos. 1288 & 1644/Mum/2019 M/s Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 5–16 iii. With respect to the disallowance under Section

Jt. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

than the loans and advances given to the related parties without charging interest. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹1,01,20374/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. ITA nos. 1288 & 1644/Mum/2019 M/s Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 5–16 iii. With respect to the disallowance under Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

ignoring the provision of section 40A(9) of the Act which provide for deduction only for payment to approved/recognized funds as referred to section 36(1)(iv) & (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 30. While deciding the aforesaid question of law in favour of the assessee, Hon’ble jurisdictional ... Agarwal has sought to raise it now, before the Tribunal. Learned counsel tried to submit that on application of Section 40A (7) and Section 36 (1) (iv) of the said Act, these provisions being one for benefit of employees on superannuation ought to be approved by the appropriate authority

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

ignoring the provision of section 40A(9) of the Act which provide for deduction only for payment to approved/recognized funds as referred to section 36(1)(iv) & (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 30. While deciding the aforesaid question of law in favour of the assessee, Hon’ble jurisdictional ... Agarwal has sought to raise it now, before the Tribunal. Learned counsel tried to submit that on application of Section 40A (7) and Section 36 (1) (iv) of the said Act, these provisions being one for benefit of employees on superannuation ought to be approved by the appropriate authority