← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(a)14 judgments

I P CONSTRUCTIONS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 63/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. I.P. Constructions Private Vs. Acit, Limited, 210 First Floor, Phool Circle-12(2), Singh Market Main, Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pin 1100 92 Pan No. Aabci4548K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Chandra Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(a)

company project and making an addition of Rs.3,92,66,722/- on account of alleged suppressed revenue. Addition of Rs.14,386/- made under Section 36(1)(a) of the Act was brought by Finance Act, 2021 is prospective and applicable w.e.f. assessment year 2020-21 has been wrongly invoked ... deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, ground of appeal nos. 1 to 3 are allowed. 9. Addition of Rs.14,386/- made under Section 36(1)(a) of the Act was brought by Finance Act, 2021 is prospective and applicable w.e.f. assessment year 2020-21 has been wrongly invoked for assessment year

ARVIND CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 41(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6649/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No.6649/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2020

CONDOR FOOTWEAR (INDIA) LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE PCIT, SURAT-1, SURAT, SURAT

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

ITA 336/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Condor Footwear (India) Limited, Vs. The Pcit – 1, Plot No. A-5/3, Road No.10, Main Surat Gate No.2, Hojiwala Industrial Esta, Vanz, Surat, B.O. - 394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc9540N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(a)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

RAMZANALI ASGAR KHAN,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 807/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nayaz Pasha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

beyond the jurisdiction u/s 143(1) 1.1 The A.O., C.P.C., Bengaluru has no jurisdiction to make the addition on account of Section 36(1)(va) as the same cannot be given effect by way of intimation u/s 143(1). Reliance is placed on following decisions, (all of which, except last ... ITAT-2022(Delhi)-O] h) Garg Head Centre & Nursing Home P Ltd vs ACIT, ITA No. 1700/DeV2022 1.2 Invalid invocation of Section 36(1)(va) : The AO, has invoked section 36(1)(va) which is illegal. If at all any addition to income should have been made it should have

RAMZANALI ASGAR KHAN ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nayaz Pasha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

beyond the jurisdiction u/s 143(1) 1.1 The A.O., C.P.C., Bengaluru has no jurisdiction to make the addition on account of Section 36(1)(va) as the same cannot be given effect by way of intimation u/s 143(1). Reliance is placed on following decisions, (all of which, except last ... ITAT-2022(Delhi)-O] h) Garg Head Centre & Nursing Home P Ltd vs ACIT, ITA No. 1700/DeV2022 1.2 Invalid invocation of Section 36(1)(va) : The AO, has invoked section 36(1)(va) which is illegal. If at all any addition to income should have been made it should have

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 605/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

1)(va) on 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 tenable on facts and is therefore, fully confirmed. Appellant's Grounds on this issue fails ... supra) is reproduced as under:- ‘’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

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 574/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

1)(va) on 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 tenable on facts and is therefore, fully confirmed. Appellant's Grounds on this issue fails ... supra) is reproduced as under:- ‘’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

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

provident fund amounting to Rs.2,14,97,991/- was paid by the assessee within the due date as specified in Explanation to section 36(1)(va). (b) appreciating that the employee contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs.2,14,97,991/- was paid by the assessee within the grace period ... details available on record and on perusal of the details of payment of PF/ESI contributions of the employees, within the meaning of section 36(1)(va) of the Act reported by the auditors in form 3CD, it was seen that PF contributions of the employees were not deposited within

HISAR METAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HISAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE,HISAR

Appeal of the assessee are dismissed and the Appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 2248/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2019-20
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 361vSection 438

Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of 140, 0 who had made addition of Rs 34,50,723 under section 36(1) of the Act, being the employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI respectively which was deducted from the employee's salary and not remitted ... same. 4. That the Learned CIT(ALNFAC has misinterpreted context of amendment brought via Finance Bill 2021 to the Section 438 and Section 36(1)(va) and was unjustified in confirming the addition made by Learned Assessing Officer relying on the amendments made to section 36(1)(a) and Section

HISAR METAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HISAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE, HISAR

Appeal of the assessee are dismissed and the Appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 2244/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2018-19
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 361vSection 438

Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of 140, 0 who had made addition of Rs 34,50,723 under section 36(1) of the Act, being the employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI respectively which was deducted from the employee's salary and not remitted ... same. 4. That the Learned CIT(ALNFAC has misinterpreted context of amendment brought via Finance Bill 2021 to the Section 438 and Section 36(1)(va) and was unjustified in confirming the addition made by Learned Assessing Officer relying on the amendments made to section 36(1)(a) and Section

GANNON DUNKERLEY & CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd, Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Aayakar Bhavan, Building Ak Nayak Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaacg 1846 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Babulal Sharma, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Babulal Sharma, AR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

entitle the employer to a deduction under section entitle the employer to a deduction under section entitle the employer to a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act unless the employer had credited 36(1)(va) of the Act unless the employer had credited 36(1 ... within the relevant fund within the 'due date applicable for that date applicable for that Gannon Dunkerlye & Co. Ltd. 5 relevant fund. (incidentally Section 36(1)(va) was relevant fund. (incidentally Section 36(1)(va) was relevant fund. (incidentally Section 36(1)(va) was inserted by the Finance

UNITED SHIPPERS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 3 (3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7801/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhunited Shippers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Prospect Income Tax-3(3) Chambers, D.N. Road, Air India Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0764C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Aakash Marthak &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 43B

vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under ... Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution

CHANNA KESHAVA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 601/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.S.N.Shyanbhog, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1) proceedings. 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendment by way of explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and explanation 5 to the section 43B made in the finance Act 2021 has retrospective effect as such the decisions relied on by the appellant are not applicable ... 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. 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