“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)

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

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

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that

M/S. Suravi Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3702/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

carried forward to subsequent year on the ground that no business activity is being carried out and that disallowance is warranted as per section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowances made by the Ld.AO ought ... submitted that the interest cost was carry forwarded to subsequent years. It is thus submitted that, question of disallowing the same under section 36(1)(iii) does not arise. The Ld.AR emphasised that no new loans were taken by the assessee during the year. 6.3 On the contrary the Ld.DR

Lupin Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1504/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B Before Dr. B.R.R. Kumar Kumar, , , , Vice Vice-Before Before Dr. B Dr. B Kumar Kumar Viceshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalcheckmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. 1115 To 1120, 73 East Avenue, Income-Tax, Sarabhai Campus, Near Genda Circle 1(1)(1), Circle, Vadodara-390023 Vadodara [Pan :Aaacc 8465 A] (Appellant Appellant Appellant) Appellant .. (Respondent Respondent Respondent) Respondent Appellant By : Appellant By : Ms. Kinjal V. Shah, Ar Appellant By : Appellant By : Respondent By: Respondent By Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr Respondent By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025

For Appellant: Appellant byFor Respondent: Respondent by Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 26ASection 36(1)(va)

Ground No.1 & 2 Disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to PF/ESI Disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to PF/ESI 4. The Assessing Officer made a disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act for delay in deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI beyond the due date as prescribed under

Indocare Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. Ward 12(1), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4750/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19

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

accordingly proceeded ex parte. 2. The Revenue vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly invoked section 36(1)(va) isallowance to make addition of Rs. 14,76,834/- on account of assessee’s failure in not having deposited the ESI/PFin the prescribed

Siyaram City Cabs Ltd., Jaipur vs. Itd Ward 6(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 661/JPR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40

erred in confirming the action of Id. AO, in making addition of Rs.2,07,643/- under section 36(1)(va) to the income of the assessee. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted ... under following heads. 6 SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR Under Section 40(a)(ia) Rs.6,61,088/- Under Section 36(1)(va) Rs.2,07,643/- Under Section 37 Rs. 52,100/- 3.2 In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Kapil Foods and Structures Private Limited, Warangal vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 206/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.205 & 206/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Warangal. Pan: Aacck2614F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 09.12.2024 For The A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Identical & Belong To The Same Assessee, One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

funds available with the assessee are more than the amount of investment in non-current assets. Therefore, no addition can be made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in the hands of the ITA No.205/Hyd/2025 6 assessee. In support of his claim, the assessee relied on the decision

Kapil Foods and Structures Private Limited, Warangal vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 205/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

Vinay Tarachand Chawla, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

assessee's claim of bad debt for interest receivable from M/s. Chinmaya Associates is inadmissible under Section 36(1)(vii). Since, the said firm continued to exist and can therefore revive as well. Thence, there is no evidence to establish that the debt has become wholly irrecoverable. Mere filing

DCIT-15.1.2, Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Ispat Infrastructure India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1502/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(1)(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Ispat Infrastructure India Ltd., Office No.470 Central Facility Building, ……………… Respondent Phase – Ii, Sector 19 Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan : Aabci0639P Assessee By : Shri Hemant Vora Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hemant VoraFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: – “1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of bad debts claimed under Section 36(1)(vii) without requiring the assessee to prove the actual irrecoverability of the debt, despite the settled position that mere book entry is not sufficient ... assessments?” 3. The issue arising in Ground No.1, raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to the disallowance of bad debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are that: The assessee is engaged in the business

Linen Design Company Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

ITA 3358/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwallinen Design Company Acit/Dcit, Private Limited, Circle-13(1), Flat No.701, Tower-Ii, Vs. Delhi. Sohna Road, Vipul Greens, Sector-48, Gurgaon (Gurugram)-122018. Pan-Aabcl7123P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Department By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.03.2025 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/154/2024-25/1075116153(1) Passed U/S 154 R.W.S250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 06.01.2020 For The Captioned Linen Design Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Year Wherein Disallowance Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution Towards The Esi/Epf Of Rs.20,17,444/- Was Made.

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

disallowance of Rs.20,17,444/- made by the AO(CPC) on account of late deposit of ESI and PF invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the above said disallowance has been confirmed rejecting the submissions and explanations made by the assessee

Rishi Parkash, Sonipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Sonipat

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3230/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

claims for deduction of delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards Employees State Insurance and Provident Fund of Rs.28,21,065/- under Section 36 (1) (va) of the Act of 1961 were disallowed, inasmuch as, on the said date, the issue with regard to delayed deposit of contribution with ... supra). In the said judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court noticed a division of opinion on the issue of interpretation under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961, with the High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi favouring the interpretation beneficial to the assessees

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 644/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

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

contribution with employer’s contribution and administrative charges. It was submitted that under the law, only employees’ contribution falls within the mischief of section 36(1)(va), whereas employer’s contribution is separately governed by section 43B. It was emphasized that the assessee had in fact deposited the employer ... 971/Del/2025, order dated 22.08.2025, wherein the Tribunal, after an elaborate analysis of the provisions of section 143(1)(a), section 36(1)(va), and section 43B, concluded that disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI on the basis of delayed deposit is not a matter which falls within the limited compass

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 643/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

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

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 642/CHANDI/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

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

Cogneesol Private Limited, Mohali vs. Addljcit (A), Aurangabad

ITA 526/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 526/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in interpreting section 36(1)(va) of the Act independently without considering the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deeming ... impact of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B as retrospective. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making additions of Rs.57,390/- on account of business expenditure incurred at clubs being entrance fees and subscription as per section

ACIT, Circle-52(1), New Delhi vs. N.S.Software, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1834/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1833 और 1834 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Prince Bansal, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 80I

interest paid by the respondent/assessee to the bank has been allowed as expenditure under the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13.1 The odd years are AY 2012-13, 2013-14, 201415 and 2015-16. The CIT(A), however, made a course-correction by reversing the view

ACIT, Circle-52(1), New Delhi vs. 12, Ring Road Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1833/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1833 और 1834 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Prince Bansal, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 80I

Parag Dave, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (Previously Circle-3(3)), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 894/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 36(1)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member

Unistar Biotech Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5052/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5052/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Unistar Biotech Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, E-13, Third Floor, Plot No. 3, Lsc, Ward-27(1), Ghazipur, Delhi-110096 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu2467P Assessee By: Sh. Narender Singh, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

deduction and was already disallowed in the computation. 2. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the error in classification between section 36(1)(v) and 40A(7) was purely clerical and had no bearing on the actual taxable income reported. 2 Unistar Biotech Ltd. 3. That the appellant ... revised computation, which could not be processed due to Jurisdictional transfer. 4. That the appellant, without prejudice, does not contest the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) in respect of employees' PF/ESI contributions. 5. That In view of decisions including Rajasthan Fasteners (Raj HC), Iskander Altaf Lalljee