“employees contribution to PF”

DisallowancesSection 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)638 judgments

The decision most relied on for employees contribution to PF is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on employees contribution to PF

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).

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. 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.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court

631

citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

368 ITR 749 · 2014 · High Court

609

citing judgments

Deduction for employees' contributions to PF and ESIC is allowable under Section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1); similarly, delayed deposits of employers' contributions to ESIC and PF are also allowable.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn

41 Taxmann.com 100 · 2014 · High Court

540

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund or other welfare funds are deductible under section 36(1)(va) only if paid by the due date specified in the respective welfare fund enactments, and section 43B does not extend this period to the income tax return filing due date under section 139(1).

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court

524

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

Judgments citing employees contribution to PF

Ghibellines Security Solutions Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (OSD), New Delhi

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

ITA 1399/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of It Act & Therefore Are Allowable Under Law. 2. Without Prejudice To Above, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Adjustments As Per The Intimation U/S 143(1) Ignoring The Proposition Of Law That Notwithstanding The Disallowance Made U/S 36(1)(Va), Such Expenditure Is Eligible For Deduction U/S 37(1) Of It Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete, Modify/ Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal With The Permission Of The Hon’Ble Appellate Authority.”

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Akriti Jewelcraftz (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Akriti Jewelcraftz (P) Ltd., Vs Acit, B-7/107A, Flat No.002, Gf, Circle-1(1), Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 029. Pan: Aakca8307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘Ld. Faa’ For Short) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 23.12.2021 Passed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Articles & Things Of Customized Nature From Precious & Semi-Precious Stones & Other Articles Under The Name & Style Of Akriti Jewelcraftz Private Limited. During The Year Under Consideration, The Appellant Has Filed The Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Inr 74,28,280/-. The Said Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant Was Processed By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre ("Ao") Under Section 143(1) Of The Act At An Income Of Inr 80,05,630/- By Disallowing Inr 5,77,345/- U/S 36(L)(Va) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esi. The Appellant Filed The Appeal To Hon'Ble Cit(A) Against The Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

disallowing INR 5,77,345/- u/s 36(l)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI. The appellant filed the appeal to Hon'ble CIT(A) against the Order u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided ... disallowing INR 5,77,345/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payment of Employees contribution to PF and 2 ESI without appreciating the fact that the payments have been made before the due date of filing the return

Creative Integrated Facility Management, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2806/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

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

available on record. 3. In its appeal for the assessment year 2020-21, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1) Disallowance of employees contribution to PF & ESIC Expenses For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred ... disallowing amount of Rs. 33,88,722/-in respect of employees contribution to PF & ESIC Expenses to the extent not credited to the employees account on or before the due date 36(1)(va) claimed in return in schedule Ol and audit report as, allegedly, reported in Tax Audit Report

Creative Integrated Facility Management, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2805/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

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

Rsb Projects Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 269/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

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

disputed issue is no more res integra, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly and categorically held that in case employees contribution to PF and ESI have not been deposited within the due date prescribed under the PF and ESI Acts, the same cannot be allowed as deduction ... provisions contained under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that in such circumstances, the employees contribution to PF and ESI not deposited within the due date, shall be treated as income of the assessee

M/S. Kamla Construction Co., Bhopal vs. Pr. CIT-2, Bhopal

In the result, ground no.1 of the assesse’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 16/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Kamla Construction Co. Pr. Cit-2 Kcc Main Road Bhopal Vs. Obedullaganj Dist. Raisen (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aktpp8040L Assessee By Shri Sumit Kumar Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.11.2023

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Kamla Construction Co. Page 2 of 5 u/s 263 was set aside qua issue no.1 being disallowance of deduction of Employees Contribution to PF due to delay in payments but was paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Thereafter ... hearing and adjudication. Thus, this appeal of the assessee was again fixed for hearing and adjudication of ground no1 regarding the disallowance of Employees Contribution to PF on account of delay in payments. 3. We have heard the Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR and considered the relevant material

Om Infra Limited, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ADIT (CPC) Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 536/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 534 & 536/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2018-19 Om Infra Limited Om Tower, M. I. Road Church Road, Rajasthan cuke Vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACO 8245 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Nehra

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

vide order 06.01.2023. The concluding para in the case of is reproduced as under: Om Infra Limited vs. ADIT (CPC) Bangalore Business expenditure - Employees contribution to PF and ESt-Delayed deposit of employees' contribution - Addition can be made in respect of the employees contribution to PF/ES! which has not been

Om Infra Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ADIT (CPC) Bangalore, Bengaluru Karnataka

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 534/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Modinagar Rolls Pvt Ltd, Moradabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 333/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumarita No. 333/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Modinagar Rolls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre Major Asha Ram Tyagi (Nfac) Road, Sikri Kalan, Income Tax Department, Modinagar - 201204 U.P. Delhi Pan : Aabcm0137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Smita Singh, Sr Dr

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

vide order dated 23.12.2022 sustained the addition made by AO u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act towards late deposit of Employees Contribution Fund PF of Rs. 9,93,247/- and the addition of Rs.1,23,868 towards late deposit of ESI. 3. Aggrieved by the order ... case of Checkmate Services Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in Civil Appeal No. 2839/ 2016, order dated 12/10/2022 held that the employees contribution to PF and ESI, if not remitted before the due date prescribed in the respective enactments, cannot be allowed as deduction. In view

Central Investigation and Security Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2363/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Central Investigation & Dy. Cit, Cpc Security Services Ltd., Bangalore-565050. Vs. Block Q, Dalal Estate, Mumbai Central 400 008. Pan No. Aaacc 6145 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Adiya Sharma Revenue By : Mr. H M Bhatt, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/10/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Adiya SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. H M Bhatt, DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Vansh Nirmay Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-14(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 475/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 36(1)(va)

same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal. 4. The Ld A.R submitted that the due date for making payment of employees contribution of PF is 15th day of the succeeding month. However, as per para 5.1.3 of Manual of Accounting Procedure (Part I General), the employers are allowed ... Following the above said decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we hold that the payments of employees contribution of PF within the grace period of five days granted beyond the due date is allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, as submitted

Orient Craft Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Gurgaon

ITA 1097/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

upholding the order of the AO u/s 154 r.w.s 143(3) and 143(1) disallowing a sum of Rs.12,82,40,760/- being Employees Contribution to PF and ESI, which were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income for the mere reason that appeal filed ... order of the AO u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) and 143(1) in disallowing a sum of Rs.12,82,40,760/- being Employees Contribution to PF and ESI, as disallowance of employees contribution is not within the ambit of section 143(1)(a)(iv). 4. Because the learned

Kmtc (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 2254/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Kmtc (India) Private Limited Cit(A) 2202, 22Nd Floor, Indiabulls Finance Mumbai -400 020 Centre, Tower 3, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aafck 2156 D (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2023 : 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 35D

Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2014-15. 2. The assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.4,86,368/- towards delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and addition of Rs.3 lacs on account of preliminary expenses and deduction allowed u/s. 35D of the Act. 3. The brief facts are that ... order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. Ground no. 1 pertains to the disallowance of Rs.4,86,368/- towards delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF u/s.2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. It is observed that the assessee had deposited the employee’s contribution to PF

Gautam Technocast, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2335/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Blegautam Technocast, Dy. Cit Cpc, Bangalore. 7/12, Meckone House, Vs. 369, Bhandarkar Road, Matunga East, Mumbai 400 019. Pan Aabfg8700E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kishore ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr AR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI Before Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’ble Accountant Member, & Shri

Sri Nirmal Chandra Padhiary, Balasore vs. ACIT, Balasore Circle, Balasore

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

ITA 157/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.157/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Sri Nirmal Chandra Padhiary, Vs Acit, Balasore Circle, Balasore Bampada, Chhanpur, Birla Tyre Road, Balasore-756056 Pan No. :Acupp 0872 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mr. Somanath Sahoo, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 25.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1049108098(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 35 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which The Ld. Sr. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. On Perusal Of The Application & The Affidavit Of The Assessee, We Found That The Delay Occurred Due To Bonafide Reasons. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Appeal & Appeal Is Disposed Off Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Two Additions Are Challenged In This Appeal, One Is Against The Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Paid Belatedly

For Appellant: Shri Mr. Somanath Sahoo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR

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

dated 12.10.2022, reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if the employees contribution to PF and ESI has been paid beyond the time prescribed under the relevant PF Act, then same is not allowable 3 under section ... been made before the due date of filing of return under the Income tax Act. It was the submission that the amount of employees contribution to PF and ESI, which has not been paid within the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, has been held

Lal Babu Pandey, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 275/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: C. A

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in charging interest of Rs.1,05,450/- ie. [u/s.234B Rs.72,270/- and u/s.234C Rs.33,180/] without appreciating the fact that deduction towards employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s.36(1)(va) was claimed in the return of income applying the jurisdictional Punjab & High Court Order in the case ... H.HC)", accordingly assessee shall not be liable for interest on account of disallowances of Rs.31,81,554/-us.36(1)(va) relating to employees contribution to PF & ESI thus prays for deletion of interest in full. I.T.A. Nos. 275 & 1232/Del/2023 GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATING TO MERITS AND FACTS OF THE CASE

Lal Babu Pandey, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1232/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: C. A

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Chw Forge Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Spl Range 2(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2980/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediachw Forge Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Near Hapur Road Flyover, Special Range 2(4) Maliwara, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh - 201 001 Pan No. Aaacc 6049 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manoj Singhal, C.A. Revenue By Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH

Teradata India Pvt Ltd, Grugram vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 2337/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

revenue is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of employees contribution to PF and Labour Welfare fund (LWF). 28. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that

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

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1430/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G