“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)

Krantiagani Dr G D Bapu Lad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kundal vs. ACIT, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 68/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Krantiagrani Dr G D Bapu Lad The Acit, Sangli. Sahakarisakharkarkhana Ltd., V Gat No.514, Kundal S.O. S Sangli – 416309. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaak1277C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.67 & 68/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Krantiagrani Dr G D Bapu Lad The Acit, Sangli. Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., V Gat No.514, Kundal S.O. S Sangli – 416309.Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaak1277C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shubhada A Koppa – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 9

this judgment, the Finance Act, 2023, brought in clause (19) in section 155 in the Income tax Act to extend the provisions of section 36(1)(xvii) to the years prior to AY 2016-17. CBDT issued a Circular 14 of 2023 specifying SOPs for the assessee Co-op Sugar

Krantiagani Dr G D Bapu Lad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kundal vs. ACIT, Sangali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 67/PUN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 9

Barbate Automotive (India) Private Ltd, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 168/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 312Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438Section 43B

only grievance of the assessee is against disallowance on account of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the records are: The assessee is a Company filed its return ... Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as late deposit of employees contribution towards ESIC/EPF. The AO ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". Those amounts could not have

Goldline Pharmaceutical Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT-Circle-4, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 166/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)

confirming the action of the ld. AO(CPC) in disallowing the Employee contribution of Rs. 12,99,432/- by invoking provision of Section 36(1)(va), w.r.t. PF/ESI on the basis of tax audit report, where the possibility of error in accounting the same cannot be rule out, because employee ... ./2024 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against disallowance on account of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the records are: The Central Processing Centre (CPC), while processing

Shilpa Steel & Power Ltd., Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, both the appeals for the A

ITA 160/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Marathe

Section 17Section 37

making addition of Rs.1,20,129/ on account of employees contribution to ESIC Fund paid after the due date by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) r/w.s. 2(24)(x). On the facts and circumstances of the case, the payment has been made before due date of filing return ... relevant observations are extracted below:– “53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms

Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 372/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

disallowed and taxes were accordingly paid. 14(b). Now, so far as reference given by the ld. AO to the 6th proviso to Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act is concerned, first we will go through the said provision, which is reproduced below for ready reference:- “Provided also that ... wherever similar transaction takes place. Therefore, we fail to find any merit in the observation of the revenue authorities that 6th proviso to Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act is applicable. We thus, accept the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that during FY 2014-15 relevant

Primetals Technologies India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 371/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

M/S Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4810/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Motilal Oswal Home Finance Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit, Circle – 4(1)(1) Motilal Oswal Tower Room No. 649, 6Th Floor Prabhadevi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400024 Mumbai 400020 Pan/Gir No. : Aamca0234H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 438

Provident Fund aggregating Rs ITA No.4810/Mum/2023 AYs 2017-18 2 Motilal Oswal Home Finance Ltd. v. Dy CIT 42,04,363/- under section 36(1)(va) read with section 438 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case ... disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer in relation to delay in depositing employees' contribution to ESIC amounting to Rs 1,41.191under section 36(1)(va) read with section 438 of the income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2128/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 35

under Section 35(2AB) amounting to Rs.50,67,99,443/-, addition of Rs.5,53,07,808/- towards capitalisation of interest to CWIT under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.1 ... Revenue’s appeal, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.5,53,07,808/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 35. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly followed the A.Y. 2011-12 which was decided

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1787/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 35

Naveen Merico Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 424/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Bibekananda Madhu, JCIT, Sr. DR

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

said judgment is reproduced as under: “The deduction made by employers to approved provident fund schemes, is the subject matter of Section 36(1) (iv). It is noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1 ... income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, Section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated

Jagmohan Motors Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle

In the result, this assessee’s appeal is, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 466/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19, whereby and where under, the addition to the tune of Rs.68,63,749/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act was made by the AO, has been confirmed for A.Y. 2018-19. Jagmohan Motors Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2018-19 2. The brief ... respect of late deposit of employer and employee’s contribution of PF and ESI to the tune of Rs.68,63,749/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, admittedly, the appellant has paid employer’s contribution before the due date of return. In that view of the matter

Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

ITA 2829/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 250

advance has also not been offered as income in the hands of the appellant in any previous year. 7.4 The clause (vii) of section 36 (1) provides that the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee

Simbhaoli Sugars Limited, Hapur vs. ACIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Bulandshahr

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2104/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The "Due Date" For Furnishing The Return Of Income Under I. Tax Act.

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously ... prescribed time – by way of contribution of the employees’ share to their credit with the relevant fund isto be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited

M/S. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly

ITA 6130/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: the time of hearing."

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

receipts are also not in the nature of income from long term finance and hence this cannot be considered for allowing deduction under section 36(1)(viii). 14. With the above observations, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that long terms finance given under Explanation (h) to Section 36(1)(viii ... debentures at any time means, it is not falling under the category of ‘long term finance’ in terms of Explanation (h) to section 36(1)(viii) and the assessee has not shown how the assessment order is erroneous on this issue. With the above observation, he dismissed the grounds raised

M/S Bigwig Motors Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 106/NAG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No

Divyapalsinh Tejpalsinh Jadeja, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 579/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, Inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 438 its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly As discussed previously ... prescribed time by way of contribution of the employees' share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers' contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited

Divyapalsinh Tejpalsinh Jadeja, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 578/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 88/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.88/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 10, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Income Tax/Ito, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aabct0551H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Selva Moorthy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 16.11.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Addl./Jcit(A), Varanasi] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A) In Treating Employees’ Pf Contribution As Income By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P. Selva Moorthy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

assessee challenging the action of ld. Addl./JCIT(A) in treating employees’ PF contribution as income by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. No.88/Chny/24 3. We note that the assessee remitted employees’ PF contribution within

Moog Motion Controls Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 184/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K. P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

refund of Rs.54,16,070/-. The said return was processed on 17.03.2021 by the CPC, Bengaluru, and there was a disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act for the delayed remittance of the employees’ contribution of Rs.2,60,000/- and there was also ... assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the disallowance for delayed remittance of employees’ contribution as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., and Others