← 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 Onmobile Global Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

While 'computer' has not been defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961, the term 'Computer System' has been defined under Explanation (a) to section 36(1)(xi) of the Act as under : '(a) "computer system" means a device or collection of devices including input and output support devices and excluding

Smt Asha Devi Poddar, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 687/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

chosen to write off Rs.1,79,73,982/- as bad debts. He submitted that the assessee has duly complied with provisions of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act and hence claim of the assessee is allowable as bad debts as held in the case

M/S. Nath Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 832/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 119Section 139(5)

1) of the Act, so it is allowable deduction. However according to Ld. DR the explanation inserted in Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is retrospective in nature and is applicable for the year under consideration (i.e, AY 2018-19). However

The Malad Sahakari Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 61/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ms. Tejasvi PatilFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income of the Appellant was computed at INR 5,43,41,690/- by making, inter alia, disallowance of INR 3,60,252/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and a disallowance of INR 6,69,247/- under Section 43B of the Act. 3. The Appellant filed application ... However, the CIT(A) declined to grant any relief to the Assessee as regards disallowance of INR 3,60,252/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act holding as under: “55. In view of the same, with due respect, the reliance of the appellant on ratios of various judgments

Pearl Freight Serv. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Aksh Jain, ACIT -15(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 31/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepearl Freight Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit-15(2)(2) B-106, Great Services Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Sector – 15, Cbd Belapur Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Navi Mumbai – 400614 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcp1825G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Mishra Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti MishraFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

employee account before the due date. Accordingly, Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹.1,73,45,956 by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Further, he observed that assessee has made investment in House No.43 to the tune of ₹.14 Lakhs as on 31.03.2013. However

Bellur Hiriyaniah Sridhar Murthy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 544/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43B

additions made are contrary to the materials and hence the same is perverse; erred in law and in facts by applying section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 instead of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The learned Assessing Officer, erred by not appreciating ... addition made by the Ld. AO in his order by taking recourse to the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to the section 43B which takes effect from 1st April 2021 and is applicable to the AY 2021-22 onwards

Bellur Hiriyaniah Sridhar Murthy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 543/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43B

additions made are contrary to the materials and hence the same is perverse; erred in law and in facts by applying section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 instead of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The learned Assessing Officer, erred by not appreciating ... addition made by the Ld. AO in his order by taking recourse to the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to the section 43B which takes effect from 1st April 2021 and is applicable to the AY 2021-22 onwards

Teamlease Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 530/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Teamlease Services Ltd., The Assistant 6Th Floor, Bmtc Director Of Commercial Complex, Income Tax, 80 Feet Road, Cpc, Koramangala, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 095. Pan: Aabct5458K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27/09/2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

employee contribution paid before filing of income tax returns The CPC and Ld.CIT(A) have not appreciated the fact that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) is prospective in nature. The memorandum explaining the provision 3. of Finance Bill, 2021 clearly states that the amendment to section 36(1 ... remitted within the due date as mentioned in the respective Acts. The CIT(A) also relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 Before us none appeared today on behalf

Shahi Electricals, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 528/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sairam, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 43B by Finance Act 2021. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section43B of the Act was inserted by Finance act 2021 and the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing ... amendment in section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only prospectively from 01.04.2021. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the decision of the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in case of Essae Teraoka Private limited vs DCIT

Park View Service Station, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 527/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sairam V, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayan, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 43B by Finance Act 2021. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B of the Act was inserted by Finance Act 2021 and the explanatory memorandum to the Finance ... proposing amendment in section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only prospectively from 01.04.2021. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the decision of the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in case of Essae Teraoka Private limited

Wave Mechancis Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Wave Mechanics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, V-3, V-3, I Main, I Phase, Peenya Cpc, Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aaacw 3621 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhukeshwar Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 6. The CIT(A) was of the view that Section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate on totally different footings and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment

Krishnappa Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Krishnappa Murthy, Vs. Cit, #67, 4Th Cross, 2Nd Main, Hosahalli, Cpc, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan : Armpm 8844 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Priya Balashankar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Balashankar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 6. The CIT(A) was of the view that Section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate on totally different footings and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment

Balmatta Diagnostic & Research Centre Ltd., Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 516/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Mrinalini R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 6. The CIT(A) was of the view that Section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate on totally different footings and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment

Balmatta Diagnostic & Research Centre Ltd., Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 515/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 6. The CIT(A) was of the view that Section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate on totally different footings and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent ... return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the I.T. Act, alters the position of law adversely to the assessee. Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective

M/S. Sree Narasimha Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sree Narasimha Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.57, Ground Floor, Vasuki, Cpc, Swasthi Road Cross Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aakcs 0472 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Priya Balashankar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Balashankar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 6. The CIT(A) was of the view that Section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate on totally different footings and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment

C Krishniah Chetty Jewellers Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 747/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Krishniah Chetty Jewellers Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(1), No.36, 1St Floor, Commercial Street, Bengaluru. Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaack 5621 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. R. Krishna, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. C. R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 6. The CIT(A) was of the view that Section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate on totally different footings and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment

Bholanath Precision Engineering Pvt Ltd, Bhandup, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre

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

ITA 86/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Bholanath Precision Engineering Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Pvt Ltd, 11, Kembros Industrial (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Estate, Sonapur Lane, Bhandup, Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 078 Pan : Aaccb6076G Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

contribution of the ESI & PF. 2 c. holding that Section 43B apply; only to employer's contribution,, d. Holding that, the amendments to Section 36(1 j(va) and Section 43B brought in by Finance Act, 2021 are retrospective and clarificatory in nature and hence the amendment is applicable ... Income-tax (Appeals) 11 has erred in confirming the adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) as done by CPC under section 43B and section 36(1)(va) as done by CPC under section 43B and section 36(1)(va) of Rs. 1625634. The adjustment done by the CPC in the intimation

M/S. Arihant Digiprint, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 430/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Arihant Digiprint Vs. Acit, Circle – 26(1) Shed No. 1, Italian Kautilaya Bhavan, Bkc Compound, Goregoan Bandra (E), (E), Mumbai-400063. Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa8412H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Ketan Vajani.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 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(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Ketan Vajani.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bangalore, hereinafter referred to as the "PC', on account of employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC by wrongly applying the provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Income-tax Act as applicable at the relevant point of time. 3. The NFAC has failed to appreciate the fact that ... made within the due date for filing the Return of Income. 5. The NFAC has erred in interpreting that the amendments made to section 36(1) (va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 will also apply to the earlier years and thereby holding that

The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 2426/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return Prescribed Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj K. JainFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Appellant has raised Ground No. 1 and 1(a) directed against the disallowance of INR 4,02,180/- made under Section 36(1)(va) of the ITA. No. 2426/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Act in respect of employees’ contribution to Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and Provident Fund (PF) deposited ... Section 143(1) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC after making addition of INR 4,02,180/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act being aggregate employees’ contribution to ESIC and PF deposited after the due date specified in the applicable statute but before