← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(v)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)126 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(v) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(v)

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)(v)

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 235/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

availability of surplus funds. The Ld. AR also submitted before the Ld. AO that the contribution to the Gratuity Fund is governed by section 36(1)(v) of the Act and Rules 103 and 104 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Alternatively, the Ld. AR also submitted that contribution

The Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Asst. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 325/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

availability of surplus funds. The Ld. AR also submitted before the Ld. AO that the contribution to the Gratuity Fund is governed by section 36(1)(v) of the Act and Rules 103 and 104 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Alternatively, the Ld. AR also submitted that contribution

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 12/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

availability of surplus funds. The Ld. AR also submitted before the Ld. AO that the contribution to the Gratuity Fund is governed by section 36(1)(v) of the Act and Rules 103 and 104 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Alternatively, the Ld. AR also submitted that contribution

The ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 399/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

availability of surplus funds. The Ld. AR also submitted before the Ld. AO that the contribution to the Gratuity Fund is governed by section 36(1)(v) of the Act and Rules 103 and 104 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Alternatively, the Ld. AR also submitted that contribution

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 397/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

availability of surplus funds. The Ld. AR also submitted before the Ld. AO that the contribution to the Gratuity Fund is governed by section 36(1)(v) of the Act and Rules 103 and 104 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Alternatively, the Ld. AR also submitted that contribution

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 396/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

availability of surplus funds. The Ld. AR also submitted before the Ld. AO that the contribution to the Gratuity Fund is governed by section 36(1)(v) of the Act and Rules 103 and 104 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Alternatively, the Ld. AR also submitted that contribution

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 26/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

availability of surplus funds. The Ld. AR also submitted before the Ld. AO that the contribution to the Gratuity Fund is governed by section 36(1)(v) of the Act and Rules 103 and 104 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Alternatively, the Ld. AR also submitted that contribution

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Addl. CIT., Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 25/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

availability of surplus funds. The Ld. AR also submitted before the Ld. AO that the contribution to the Gratuity Fund is governed by section 36(1)(v) of the Act and Rules 103 and 104 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Alternatively, the Ld. AR also submitted that contribution

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bhatapara, Bhatapara

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 109/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.109/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Bayps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Khapradih, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

making payment of employees' contribution of PF/ESI within the due date prescribed under the PF and ESI Acts and, therefore. the provision of section 36(1)(v) r.w. s. 2(24)(x) of the Act was automatically attracted. The AO CPC has, in my humble view, acted in accordance with

Kavitha Suvvari, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 214/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल

Force Tech Security (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2143/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

deposit of employees contribution towards PF & ESI. The assessee has also alleged that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance under section 36(1)(v) of Rs. 5,39,686/- under the head income from business in the intimation issued us 143(1) without appreciating the fact that

Sbs International Private Limited, Manesar vs. DCIT Circle-22(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1494/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

jurisdiction was not validity assumed as per law. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance under section 36(1)(v) of Rs. 11,62,222/-under the head income from business in the intimation issued us 143(1) without appreciating the fact that such addition does ... deposit of employees contribution towards PF & ESI. The assessee has also alleged that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance under section 36(1)(v) of Rs. 11,62,222/- under the head income from business in the intimation issued us 143(1) without appreciating the fact that

DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Projects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 463/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), M/S Tata Projects Limited, Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Floor, 2, 3 & 4 One Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Boulevard, Lake Boulevard Mumbai-400020. Street Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaact 4119 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Mr. Biswananth Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 43BSection 86

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, respect of employees’ contribution to provident fund/ superannuation fund etc. under section 36(1)(v) of the Act. Without appreciating the facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The ground raised in the cross objection ... allowing deduction of 2,61,64,956/- in respect of employees contribution to provident fund/superannuation fund etc. under section 36(1)(v) of the Act. d. Short granting of TDS credit amounting to Rs.5,93,91,829/-. e. Not allowing credit of Dividend Distribution tax paid amounting to Rs.3

Liberty Oil Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Thane

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

ITA 212/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Liberty Oil Mills Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-3, 1-D Wing, Amerchand Income Tax Office, Qureshi Vs. Mansion, Madam Cama Mansion, Gokhale Road, Road, Colaba, Thane-400602 Mumbai-400039. Pan No. Aaacl 0888 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gyaneshwar Kataram Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Gyaneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

employer contribution and not employee contribution and not employee’s contribution. Those se evidencesgoes to the root of taxability of amount under section 36(1)(v) of the Act. to the root of taxability of amount under section 36(1)(v) of the Act. to the root of taxability ... amount under section 36(1)(v) of the Act. Liberty Oil Mills Ltd. 4 Therefore, in view of the evidence view of the evidences submitted by the Ld. Counsel of submitted by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, we feel it appropriate to restore th feel it appropriate to restore

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 108/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

making payment of employees' contribution of PF/ESI within the due date prescribed under the PF and ESI Acts and, therefore, the provision of section 36(1)(v) r.w. s. 2(24)(x) of the Act was automatically attracted. The AO CPC has, in my humble view, acted in accordance with

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

making payment of employees' contribution of PF/ESI within the due date prescribed under the PF and ESI Acts and, therefore, the provision of section 36(1)(v) r.w. s. 2(24)(x) of the Act was automatically attracted. The AO CPC has, in my humble view, acted in accordance with

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrunal Parekh
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH“G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL

M/S Mantra Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-CPC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 510/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2018-2019
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 438Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘ D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT-Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1431/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Teradata India Pvt. Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), Ltd., 301-302, Tower 4A, Gurugram S-Block Dlf Corporate Park, Dlf City Phase-Iii, Pan No. Aacct 6715 A Gurugram – 122 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akshay Uppal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.05.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Acit Vs. Teradata India Pvt Ltd. 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Who Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.11.2020 For A.Y. 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.61,82,86,370 /-. In The Intimation Issued U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Cpc, Bangalore Vide Identification No. Cpc/1920/A6/2014289684 Dated 18.03.2021, The Total Income Was Determined At Rs. 66,49,98,020/- Inter Alia By Disallowing Rs.4,67,11,644/- U/S 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees Contribution Of Pf/Esi.

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

return u/s 139(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, which is not law as per section 2(24)(x) r.w explanation 2 of section 36(1)(v).” 5. Before us, at the outset, Learned DR submitted though ACIT vs. Teradata India Pvt Ltd. 3 Revenue has raised two grounds

Vajra Rubber Products Private Limited, Thrissur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Smt. Preetha Shenoy, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 250Section 40A(7)

assessee is sponsored by UCO Bank, a Govt. of India Undertaking and duly complied with the conditions laid down for approval under Section 36(1)(v). At-least the AO when this factum was brought to his notice that the assessee has filed copy of the trust-deed, application