“Section 36(1)”

Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

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: -

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

Ani Integrated Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

One Point One Solutions Limited, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Thane vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

which was contended by the ld. CIT(A) as applicable only for disallowance u/s.43B of the Act and not for section 36(1)(va) of the Act brought about in the Finance Bill 2021, where explanation to Sec 36(1)(va) has stated that employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC will ... does not come under the perview of the clarifactory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 with regard amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B. From the above observation, we are of the view that the impugned addition made u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act in both the assessment

Quarter Deck, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, CPC Bangalore

In the result, this appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs 2,47,086 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: 2018-19 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

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

that the rental income is to be taxed under ‘income from house property’ and not ‘income from business’ and hence, the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act towards disallowance of interest does not arise as the same was disallowed by the ld. AO only

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Cowtown Land Development Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

been carefullyconsidered. According to the learned counsel the interest claimed by the assessee is a period cost and has to be allowed under section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act. The assessee has relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of the Taparia tools ... wherein the Supreme Court held that the only aspect which needed examination was as to whether the provisions of section 36 (1) (iii) read with section 43 (2) of the act was satisfied or not. Once these are satisfied there is no question of denying the benefit of deduction

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

holding that the interest expenditure on borrowings utilized for the purpose of the business activities of the Appellant was not allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and in disallowing interest expenditure under Section 14A of the Act aggregating to Rs.1,93,000/- in accordance with the provisions

Forcepoint Software Consulting India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailforcepoint Software Vs. Assistant Director Of Consulting India Pvt. Income Tax, Cpc Ltd., Level 2, Kalpataru Bangalore Synergy Opp. Grand Karnataka 560500 Hyatt, Santacruz (East) Mumbai- 400055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacw6672P Appellant .. Respondent

facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO CPC under section 36(1)(va) of the act of Rs. 14,90,835/- on account of delay in deposit of employee's contribution towards PF/ESI without considering the fact ... apex court and jurisdictional high court. 3. That the NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance made by AO CPC under section 36(1)(va) of the act of Rs. 14,90,835/- on account of delay in deposit of employee's contribution towards PF/ESI without considering the correct interpretation

Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir CPC``, Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvijay Bag Singh Vs. The Deputy Rajpurohit, Unit No. 2 Commissioner Of Income Building No. 2 Jaswant Tax, Cpc, Bangalore, Bagh, Sion Trombay 560100 Road, Chembur Mumbai – 400071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adqpr7848L Appellant .. Respondent

case and in law the Commissioner of Income Appeals National Faceless Appeal Centre, [Ld CIT(A)] erred in upholding disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of employees contribution made to the provided fund of Rs. 2,26,080/- which ... covered u/s 43B. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITA erred in upholding disallowance under section 36(1)(va) without considering the various jurisprudence wherein it was held that payment made for the employees' contribution before due of the filling of return

Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs 5,77,460 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 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Page 2 of 10 Act, 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

Sangeeta Udayraj Singh, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Confirmed The Action Of Cpc By Holding As Under : 5.41. I Have Carefully Considered The Arguments Of The Appellant As Well As Various Decisions Cited By The Appellant. In The Instant Case, Disallowance Has Been Made U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees' Contribution To Esic Were Deposited Much After The Specified Dates Mentioned In The Said Act & The Same Is Clearly Mentioned In The Tax Audit Report.

Finance Act 2021. 5.43. From the above judicial decisions and also from the unambiguous wording of the now amended provisions of section 36(1) and 43B, it is clear that the employee's contribution can be allowed as a deduction only if it had been paid within the prescribed ... account of appellant's failure to pay the employee's contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under the prima facie adjustments as envisaged under section 143(1)(a)(iv). The order under section

Geeta Udyog, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgeeta Udyog Vs. Asst. Director Of Income 404, Gupta Bhavan, Tax, Cpc, Bengluru Ahmedabad Street, Centralized Processing Carnac Bunder, Centre, Income Tax Mumbai – 400009 Department, Bengaluru 560500 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfg1369H Appellant .. Respondent

India P. Ltd. (2022) 134 taxmann.com 56 wherein it is held that amendment brought in by inserting Explanation 2 to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act is prospective in nature and would be applicable from assessment year 2021-22. In the case

M/S Parthiv Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Parthiv Enterprises, Ito-17(2)(5), 83 Ramesh Bhuvan Nakhoda Room No.123-A, 1St Floor, Street, Vs. Pydhonie, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 003 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaefp8201A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2022 O R D E R Per Amar Jit Singh: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing The Interest Free Loans Of Rs.3,35,23,178/- Out Of Rs.12,19,54,637/- & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same As Loans Taken For Non-Business Purposes. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing & Adding The Proportionate Interest Paid Of Rs.22,24,357/- Out Of The Total Interest Paid Of Rs.80,92,036/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Added The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non Business Purpose. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of The Genuine Loan Received From The Mis K.C. Kapadia & Sons(P) Ltd Of Rs.39,34,639/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non-Business Purpose.

issues are in connection with the disallowance of interest of Rs.22,24,357/- out of total interest of Rs.80,92,036/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act treating the same for non-business purpose. Before going further, we deem it necessary to advert the finding

Wanbury Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Wanbury Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Sector 30A, Income Tax, Bsel Tech Park B Wing Circle 15(3)(1), Vs. Opp Vashi Rly Station R.No. 451 Aayakar Bhavan Vashi, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400075 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp5939P

Income Tax (Appeals)-24, [the learned CIT (A)], Mumbai dated 07.02.2019 for AY 2015-16 raising following grounds of appeal. “1. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing interest expense under ... section 36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,39,97,017 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has incurred interest expense for the purpose of business and accordingly, the same ought Wanbury Ltd; AY 15-16 to be allowed as deduction while computing income from business

The Tata Power Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

option to call is not c. available to holders of the bonds and therefore, interest payable/paid on these bonds are not allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Haryana High Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corpn

M/S. Flag Security Services, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(1) -3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Flag Security Vs. Ito Ward-23(1)-3 Services, 101, Navjyot Mumbai Chs, Near Kadamwadi, St. Anthony Street, Vakola, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaff7581M Appellant .. Respondent

date specified u/s 139(1) and as such are fully allowable. In view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) & section 436 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being late deposit of employees contribution towards ESIC/EPF which has been duly deposited

Care Facilities Management Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals) NFAC-Delhi, Mumbai

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

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Noted That Pf&Esic Have Been Deposited After The Due Date But Before The Date Of Filing Of Return. However, Learned Cit(A) Upheld The Action By Referring The Amendment In The Act.

issue raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 23,79,799/- under section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act pertaining to PF/ESIC contribution paid after due date made by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case

M/S. Sudershan Gears, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-17(3) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Noted That Pf&Esic Have Been Deposited After The Due Date But Before The Date Of Filing Of Return. However, Learned Cit(A) Upheld The Action By Referring The Amendment In The Act.

issue raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining to disallowance of Rs. 4,75,259/- under section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act pertaining to PF/ESIC contribution paid after due date made by CPC under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. 3. Brief facts