“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. Enphase Solar Energy Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 723/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Enphase Solar Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income 259, 2Nd Main, 6Th Cross, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Indiranagar, Stage 1, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 038. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaece 7259 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

Provident Fund contributions remitted after the due date, by coming to the conclusion that the same need to be disallowed in terms of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The details of the contributions collected from the Employees and the actual date of remittance to the government was given ... submitted that the AO has erred in not appreciating that the meaning of ‘DUE DATE” in terms of Section 36(1)(va) ought to be recknoned as the DUE DATE for filing of the Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act and not the “DUE DATE

Matrix Cellular Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5846/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5846/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Matrix Cellular Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 7, Khullar Farm, Mandi Road, Circle-16(2), Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm9420A Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Khanna, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Khanna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR

adjusted through book entry. Hence, disallowance of Rs. 96,98,713/- was made u/s 36(1)(iii). 7. Relying on the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Sons ... case of CIT vs. Sujani Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (151 ITR 653), the AO held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(iii). 8. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding that the assessee failed to establish any direct nexus between own funds

ACIT. Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Eipr India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7471/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 3(1)(2) V. M/S. Eipr India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor G-11, Tulsiani Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fress Press Journal Marg Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaace9094M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

Section 14ASection 69C

Tribunal which we have summarized above, it must be held that the case of the assessee-firm falls fairly and squarely within section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 6. Further, a similar view is taken by the Bombay High Court in the case

M/S. Loka Shikshana Trust, Hubli vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Loka Shikshana Trust, The Assistant Post Box No. 30, Director Of Income Samyukta Karnataka, Tax, Koppikar Road, Cpc, Hubli – 580 020. Bangalore Vs. Pan: Aaatl1086H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.10.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, In So Far As Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Is Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Adding The Amount Of Delayed

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar, CA

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

fact and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in coming to conclusion that insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 4 to section 43B by the Finance Act 2021 has retrospective effect, in spite of categorical assertion in Notes on Clauses ... 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 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue

Asia Seeds India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 715/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Rajkumar Ganeriwala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. It was further held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 3 ITA Nos.714-715/Bang/2021 M/s.Asia Seed India (P) Ltd. 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation ... return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. It was further held by the ITAT that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is not clarificatory. The relevant finding of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company

Asia Seeds India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 714/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Rajkumar Ganeriwala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

Sri, Ramachandra Naveen, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Ramachandra Naveen, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.4140 Sam Chambers, 80 Feet Road, Central Processing Centre, Girinagar, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 085. Pan : Acvpn 6688 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(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. 5. 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

Sivan Securities Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 708/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Sivan Securities Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 23/2, Coffeeday Square, Income Tax, Vittal Mallya Road, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaccs5138G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.10.2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & Law Applicable To It. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.11,05,657/- Invoking The Provisions Of Section 143(1)(A)(Ii) Of The Act, Holding That The Said Amount Is Assessable Under The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA

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

invoking the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the act, holding that the said amount is assessable under the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the act. Page 2 of 8 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that, the issue ... High Courts and also Supreme Court. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in following Explanation-2 below provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the act and also Explanation-5 below provisions of section 43B of the act ignoring the position of law that, the said explanations

Vishal Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 511/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Vishal Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 510/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Shree Shyam Designs Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Shree Shyam Designs Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.50/1A/514/2/1, Shri Rajarajeshwari Central Processing Centre, Arcade, 2Nd Floor, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Veerannapalya, Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan : Aakcs 8509 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwar Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Icon Engineering Works, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 561/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghavendra Maya, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

read as follows:- “1. It is submitted, its well settled in law that that section 43B of Income Tax Act'1961 supersedes over section 36(1)(va) of the said Act. Further the word payable is not defined anywhere in the Act. It is as per the binding policy ... case : COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX Vs SABARI ENTERPRISES, KARNATAKP HIGH COURT: [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karn) July 3, 2007, wherein its held that section 36(1)(va) clear that amounts actually paid on or before the due date of filing return u/s 139 are allowable deductions – so contributions by assessee

Marappa Shivakumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 696/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA

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

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the amendment brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature even though CBDT has clarified ... 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 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 695/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Cherian K.Baby, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed these appeals ... return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. It was further held by the ITAT that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act is not clarificatory. The relevant finding of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 694/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.Cherian K.Baby, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

Haradanahally Chennappa Reddy Arunamma, Tumkur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 683/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA

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

Sri. Shamanna Nagamma Balasubramany, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 682/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

Appeals)- 11, Bangalore erred in law and on facts in holding that the amendment brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature even though CBDT has clarified ... case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal

M/S. Hi Q Design and Detailing Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 675/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Ms.Akshaya K.S., CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

disallowance of Rs.9,14,808/- pertaining to deduction 2 ITA Nos.674-675/Bang/2021 M/s.Hi Q Design and Detailing Private Limited. claimed by the appellant under Section 36{1}{va) read with Section 43B with respect to the employees' contribution to provident fund which was credited to the employees' account in the relevant ... income under the Act. 3. The learned NFAC is not justified in holding that the amendment made by insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and the insertion of Explanation '5 to Section 43B of the Act with effect from 01/04/2021 was clariflcatorv in nature

M/S. Hi Q Design and Detailing Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 674/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms.Akshaya K.S., CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 670/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 30Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

paid by the employer in the capacity of employer. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by applying section 36(1)(va) instead of Section 438 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts ... case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal