← 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)

Alert Manpower, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of section 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable

Alert Manpower, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of section 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable

M/S. Futura Digital Color Press, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of section 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable

Sri Basavaraj Gunjegai, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of section 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the interest on hedge swaps was an allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act 12. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the aviation fuel facility of the Assessee was completed ... hence interest on swap paid after the asset was put to use was to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the tax auditor of the Assessee had certified that there

Vardan Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Income Tax Dept, Mumbai

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

ITA 2344/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvardan Nursing Home Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangaluru Private Limited, Cpc Income Tax 65, Jawahar Nagar, Opp Department Prakash Hotel, Goregaon West, Mumbai – 400062 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccv2156P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 ... Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution

M/S. Nath Indutries Ltd, Mumbai vs. A.Ci.T. Circle 1(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2321/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

disallowance of Rs.1,91,869, on account of alleged delay in payment towards Provident Fund (P.F.) / Employees State Insurance Corporation Scheme (ESIC) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1 ... 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

Bharat Tin Works, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2235/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

disallowance of Rs.12,30,544, on account of alleged delay in payment towards Provident Fund (P.F.) / Employees State Insurance Corporation Scheme (ESIC) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1 ... 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

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2962/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaharashtra State Co- Vs. Dcit-(Osd)-1 Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-1(3)(2) Vs. M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5Th Floor Co-Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

reserves (NPA). In doing so the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the view of AO regarding application of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) & restricting the claim to Rs.l,80,79,235/- being 7.5% of Rs.72,03,63.815/-. 3. The appellant craves leave of your Honour ... documentary evidences. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the deduction to the extent of Rs.1,80,79,235 in accordance with provisions of Section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. The assessee claimed that the provision of Sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act allows the deduction on account

Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaharashtra State Co- Vs. Dcit-(Osd)-1 Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-1(3)(2) Vs. M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5Th Floor Co-Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

reserves (NPA). In doing so the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the view of AO regarding application of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) & restricting the claim to Rs.l,80,79,235/- being 7.5% of Rs.72,03,63.815/-. 3. The appellant craves leave of your Honour ... documentary evidences. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the deduction to the extent of Rs.1,80,79,235 in accordance with provisions of Section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. The assessee claimed that the provision of Sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act allows the deduction on account

Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir-13(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2116/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sodexo India Services Private Limited, Dy. Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, Gemstar Commercial Complex, Tax, Cpc-13(2)(2), Ramchandra Lane Extension, Vs. Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, Kanchpada, Malad West, Aayakar Bahvan, Maharishi Mumbai-400064. Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 2547 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M.A. Gohel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

raising following grounds : Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. 2 I. ADDITION FOR DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 2(24)(x) READ WITH SECTION 36 (1) (va) Rs. 40,23,613/-: 1.1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT (Appeals)] erred in upholding the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer ... respect of Employees' contributions Provident Fund, ESIC and Labour Welfare Fund by invoking the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36 (1) (va) of the Act for alleged delay in payment thereof. 1.2. The learned CIT(Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the explanations

M/S. Meremma Basavaraj Belli, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the orders of the authority below are set aside

ITA 1489/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Itat.

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

dated 24.6.2921 pertains to A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The solitary issue in dispute is disallowance of EPF and ESI contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act by the CPC, Bangaluru adjustment under section 143(1) and confirmed by NFAC. 3. Against this order the assessee

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

issue by holding that the test of presumption as held by this Court in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra) while considering Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act would apply while considering the application of Section 14A of the Act. The aforesaid decision of this Court in HDFC Bank

M/S. Harmony Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd, DCIT CPC vs. DCIT, CPC, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 2033/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

disallowance of Rs 19,06,977/- 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. Assessment ... 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

Hercules Hoists Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Itd, Bangalore

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 2000/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

disallowance of Rs 3,16,946 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, Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 2 of 10 particularly when there are judgments ... 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

Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1958/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1958 & 1959/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2017-18 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Mr.R.D. Khona.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Love Kumar.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)

contribution to PF/ESIC payment of Rs. 10, 17,767/- on the ground that payment was not made on time as per explanation below section 36(1) (va) of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 2(24) (X) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering Clause of Finance Bill ... 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 I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent

Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1938/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Neelkanth Mansions & The Dy. Commissioner Of Infrastructure Private Limited Income–Tax, Central Circle 5Th Floor, Fine House, Anadji 14(1)(1), Vs. 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lane, M.G. Road, Mumbai-400 077 Marg, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn1245R Assessee By : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. DCIT, CPC in upholding disallowance of Rs. 1,89,235/- under section 36(1)(va) in respect of employer's contribution to ESIC in contradiction to the explicit provision of section 43B and without observing the principles ... Finance Act, 2021 and considering the same to apply retrospectively which is in direct contravention of the law since the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are applicable w.e.f. 01/04/2021 and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred not to consider the insertion

Mec Elec Industrial Services Private Limited, Thane vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1858/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ravi K. Mulchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, Sr. A.R. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

credited to the employees’ account on or before the due date and to consider the same as income by applying provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. On the receipt of the notice, the assessee submitted the reply. The AO did not find the reply justifiable, therefore, raised ... relevant statute of provident Fund Act is to be allowed despite the fact that legislation has not only incorporated necessary amendment in section 36(1)(va) of the Act by inserting explanation 2 as well as explanation 5 to section 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021, wherein

Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Astt. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore [DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai]

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1838/MUM/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhemkay Facilities Vs. Acit (Cpc), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [Dcit Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

NFAC has been created by Notification by CBDT, it should be ensured that c) By disregarding the fact that the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021 is not retrospective as is recently held in the case of M/s Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai ... There shall be no order as to costs." Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent

M/S. Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1782/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

relevant statute of provident Fund Act is to be allowed despite the fact that legislation has not only incorporated necessary amendment in section 36(1)(va) of the Act by inserting explanation 2 as well as explanation 5 to section 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021, wherein ... A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20 19. In view of the above, we are of the view that the legislative amendments incorporated in section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 by inserting explanation 2 and explanation 5 to the respective provisions, are prospective