← 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)

Crimsonlogic India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 228/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

circumstances of the case, the CPC and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in disallowing the deduction claimed by the Appellant under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B(b) of the Act, with respect to the employees contribution to provident fund and employees state insurance which was credited after ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying on the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act, without appreciating that the same were prospective in nature being effective from 01 April, 2021 and accordingly

Rashi Eco Tourism Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 50/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, Addl. DIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) against the order of AO passed u/s.154. The CIT(Appeals) stated that the impugned disallowance u/s. section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B was made due to delayed remittance of the contribution to PF & ESI when the return was processed u/s. 143(1 ... date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act? (ii) Whether the amendment by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B are not clarificatory in nature and hence prospective? 9. These issues are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision

M/S. International Aerospace Manufacturing Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 618/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Shreeshkumar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri M S Nethrapal, Addl. DIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

remittance of the contribution to PF & ESI. 4. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) based on various judicial pronouncements held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by inserting explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill 2021 was only declaratory ... return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act? Page 3 of 6 (ii) Whether the amendment by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B are not clarificatory in nature and hence prospective? 7. These issues are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision

Mr.Santosh S Lad, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1298/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

mean that the assessee not complied with ITA No.1298 /Bang/2018 Mr. Santosh S. Lad, Bangalore Page 4 of 9 the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act, so as to claim it as bad debts. Against this assessee went in appeal before ... loss so as to claim the same as business expenditure. In our opinion, the assessee has not satisfied the condition laid down in section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. As per section 36(2) of the Act, deduction shall not be allowed unless such debt

Icici Home Finance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani
Section 14ASection 201Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(viil)Section 37(1)

erred in excluding the following income on the ground that the same do not qualify for deduction under section 36(1)(viil) without appreciating the facts explained by the appellant during the course of appeal hearings : Sr.No. Particulars Amount 1. Interest on Buyout Portfolio 232,73,63,039 2. Interest ... Members directed the Appellants to file a note on ground no. 4 of appellant's appeal on claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') on interest income earned from securitization trust. Accordingly, the Appellants submit the following: 1. The appellant being

M/S. Indigenous Bureau of India, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 82/MUM/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 81 & 82 /Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/S Indigenous Bureau Vs. Cit(A) Of India (Formerly Known As Nfac, Delhi Investigation Bureau Of India) 164, 3Rd Floor, Zaveri Chambers, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafi1617H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N. B. GandhiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

before the due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(1). Relief Claimed The appellant firm humbly submits that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B made in Finance Act 2021 are prospective and not applicable to assessment year under appeal. Therefore the addition confirmed ... vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under

M/S. Indigenous Bureau of India, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 81/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 81 & 82 /Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/S Indigenous Bureau Vs. Cit(A) Of India (Formerly Known As Nfac, Delhi Investigation Bureau Of India) 164, 3Rd Floor, Zaveri Chambers, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafi1617H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N. B. GandhiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

before the due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(1). Relief Claimed The appellant firm humbly submits that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B made in Finance Act 2021 are prospective and not applicable to assessment year under appeal. Therefore the addition confirmed ... vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under

Parekhplast India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 76/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.76/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Parekhplast India Limited, 101,Shiva Plaza ,Marol Industrial Co-Operative Limited, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aabcp-4523-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Nfac,Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Tejas Sodha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Tejas SodhaFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee has assailed disallowance of Rs.9,39,141/- in respect of delay in payment of Provident Fund and Rs.17,751/- ESI contribution under section. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961[ in short ‘the Act’]. The ld.Authorized 2 Representative for the assessee submitted that the Central ... assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) assailing the disallowance. The CIT(A) referring to the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 disallowed assessee’s claim u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee

Global Waste Management Cell P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

ITA 139/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B Irani, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

passed on 18th December, 2018, by Central Processing Centre, Bangalore disallowing the employees contribution of Rs.2,94,92,315/- under section 36 (1) (va) of the Act due to late remittance. The assessee preferred before the National Faceless Centre, wherein the above disallowance was confirmed. The learned CIT(A) referred ... these three appeals is whether the Central Processing Centre, Bangalore can disallow the late payment of employees contribution to various funds under section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. This issue has recently been decided by the co-ordinate Bench in case of Kalpesh Synthetics

Global Waste Management Cell P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tas Department, Bengaluru

ITA 138/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B Irani, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

passed on 18th December, 2018, by Central Processing Centre, Bangalore disallowing the employees contribution of Rs.2,94,92,315/- under section 36 (1) (va) of the Act due to late remittance. The assessee preferred before the National Faceless Centre, wherein the above disallowance was confirmed. The learned CIT(A) referred ... these three appeals is whether the Central Processing Centre, Bangalore can disallow the late payment of employees contribution to various funds under section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. This issue has recently been decided by the co-ordinate Bench in case of Kalpesh Synthetics

M/S. Global Waste Management Cell P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Center, Bengaluru

ITA 137/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B Irani, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

passed on 18th December, 2018, by Central Processing Centre, Bangalore disallowing the employees contribution of Rs.2,94,92,315/- under section 36 (1) (va) of the Act due to late remittance. The assessee preferred before the National Faceless Centre, wherein the above disallowance was confirmed. The learned CIT(A) referred ... these three appeals is whether the Central Processing Centre, Bangalore can disallow the late payment of employees contribution to various funds under section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. This issue has recently been decided by the co-ordinate Bench in case of Kalpesh Synthetics

Padmavati Decor Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Begaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2258/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2258/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Padmavati Décor Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit-Cpc 606, 6Th Floor, Vileparle 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Vs. Shree Siddhivinay Sra Cha No.48/148/2, Shraddhananad Road, Vile Beratenaagrahara Begur, Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangaluru. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp5034F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mani Jain Revenue By: Shri Sanyam Joshi (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In National Faceless Appeal [Nfac], Delhi Dated 08.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanyam Joshi (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income u/s 139(1) of the Act, is allowable as a deduction. We note that by Finance Act, 2021, the provision of Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B has been amended to this extend by inserting the Explanation 2 whereby it was clarified that the provision ... have been applied for the purpose of determining the “due” date under this clause. For ready reference, we produce the Explanation-2 to Section 36(1)(va) as under: "Section 36(1)(va) Explnation-2-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section

Peacefort Chem India Engg. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2127/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2127/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Peacefort Chem India Engg. बिधम/ Dcit-Cpc, Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 104, Sumerkendra, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp7161P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya Revenue By: Shri Jagdish Jangid (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 30.07.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income u/s 139(1) of the Act, is allowable as a deduction. We note that by Finance Act, 2021, the provision of Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B has been amended to this extend by inserting the Explanation 2 whereby it was clarified that the provision ... have been applied for the purpose of determining the “due” date under this clause. For ready reference, we produce the Explanation-2 to Section 36(1)(va) as under: "Section 36(1)(va) Explnation-2-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section

Power Weave Software Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore, Bangslore

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

ITA 2126/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2126/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Power Weave Software बिधम/ Assistant Director Of Services Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc Vs. Power Weave House, Plot Bangalore. No.27, Eleven Building, Road No.11, Near Tunga Hotel, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9690D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh Revenue By: Shri Jagdish Jangid (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 29.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income u/s 139(1) of the Act, is allowable as a deduction. We note that by Finance Act, 2021, the provision of Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B has been amended to this extend by inserting the Explanation 2 whereby it was clarified that the provision ... have been applied for the purpose of determining the “due” date under this clause. For ready reference, we produce the Explanation-2 to Section 36(1)(va) as under: "Section 36(1)(va) Explnation-2-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section

Oam Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Dir, CPC, Bengalurl

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2060/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2060/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Oam Industries (India) Pvt. बिधम/ Asst. Director, Cpc Ltd. Centralized Processing Vs. 601, Indira Apartment, Centre, Income Tax Tejpal Scheme Road, Vile Department, Bengaluru- Parle, East, Mumbai- 560500, Karnataka. 400057. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco8897J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hitesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Jagdish Jangid (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 09.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income u/s 139(1) of the Act, is allowable as a deduction. We note that by Finance Act, 2021, the provision of Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B has been amended to this extend by inserting the Explanation 2 whereby it was clarified that the provision ... have been applied for the purpose of determining the “due” date under this clause. For ready reference, we produce the Explanation-2 to Section 36(1)(va) as under: "Section 36(1)(va) Explnation-2-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section

Geetee Travels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1778/MUM/2021[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm The Commissioner Of Income Geetee Travels Private Limited Tax (Appeals) Shop No.1, Satellite Bldg, Opp National Faceless Appeal Mistry, Complex Om Nagar, Vs. Centre, Andheri, Mumbai-400 099 Delhi (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccg7462R Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

time of Rs. 792,353/- on the plea that contribution to PF & ESIC are solely and exclusively governed by the provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act without any reference to Section 438 of the Act. Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances ... Learned Centralized Processing Centre, Income Tax Department to the tune of Rs. 7,92,353/- by relying on Explanation 2 to Section 36(1) (va) of the Act introduced by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f 01.04.2021 wherein it is stated that "Explanation 2.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby

Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 238/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.238/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. बिधम/ Asst. Director Of Income Ltd. Tax, Cpc, Bangaluru- Vs. 101, Prabhat Centre Annex, 560500. Sector-1A, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca9143A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. S. Raheja (Adv.) Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In National Faceless Appeal [Nfac], Delhi Dated 27.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2019- 20. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Payment U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Appeal Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co-Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri H. S. Raheja (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income u/s 139(1) of the Act, is allowable as a deduction. We note that by Finance Act, 2021, the provision of Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B has been amended to this extend by inserting the Explanation 2 whereby it was clarified that the provision ... have been applied for the purpose of determining the “due” date under this clause. For ready reference, we produce the Explanation-2 to Section 36(1)(va) as under: "Section 36(1)(va) Explnation-2-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section

Haldiram Foods International Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst., Director, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 2059/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Haldiram Foods Asst. Director, Cpc International Pvt. Ltd., Centralised Processing A-204, Shyamkamal, Vs. Center, Agarwal Market, Income Tax Department, Mumbai – 400 0547 Bengaluru- 560500 Pan: Aaach3628L Karnataka (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Hitesh P. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Chintamani V. Dingankar, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chintamani V. Dingankar, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

year under consideration, after due date prescribed under the PF/ESIC Act and thereby made the addition of Rs.1,60,02,116/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing ... what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that since the amended provisions contained under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act are not applicable for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2018-19 as the amendment will be effective from

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Valdel Projects Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2515/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

companies and not for immediate return. The financial assistance given is in the interest of commercial expediency. The only condition laid down in section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is that interest should be paid on a loan that is used for the purpose of business and since

Levi Staruss (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 695/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 695/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Sjr Cyber, 7Th Floor, Commissioner Of No. 22, Laskar Hosur Road, Income Tax, Adugodi, Circle 4 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 030. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacl3092Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961("The Act") On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144C

furnish details: 18. The learned AO has erred, in law and in facts, by disallowing notional interest of Rs. 2,34,000 under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the salary advance given to the employee on the basis that the transaction lacked business expediency: 19. The learned