← All Phrases

“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

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 436/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,21,09,240/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF, ESI & other welfare fund u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act by not appreciating that this adjustment is not on account ... facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,05,76,000/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF, ESI & other welfare fund u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act by not appreciating that this adjustment is not on account

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 435/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,21,09,240/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF, ESI & other welfare fund u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act by not appreciating that this adjustment is not on account ... facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,05,76,000/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF, ESI & other welfare fund u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act by not appreciating that this adjustment is not on account

A G Enviro Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 110/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 110Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2019&20½

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Potdar izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

ENVIRO INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD 2. The short issue in appeal by the assessee is disallowance of employees contribution to PF and ESIC u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 3. Shri Gaurav Potdar appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted ... assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act is without merit. Once, it is evident from the records that payments in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESIC has been made beyond the due date as specified under the respective Acts, the same has to be disallowed

Computronics Systems (India)P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT CPC /ACIT1(1) Indore, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 97/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicomputronics Systems (India) Acit-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan Private Limited, Indore, Madhyapradesh Plant No.91, Schemeno.53, Pin 452001 Vs. Ratnalok Colony Near Rasoma Square, Indore, M.P -452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0159C Assesseeby Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Acit-Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2023

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

Rs.1,21,49,697/-. Return was processed under section 143(1) whereby an adjustment of Rs.23,64,533/- on account of disallowance of employees contribution to PF and ESI deposited beyond the due date for prescribedunder the respective Acts. The CPC made the disallowance under section ... before the CIT appeal but could not succeed. 4. Before the tribunal Ld AR of the assessee has submitted that disallowance of employees contribution to PF and ESI has been made by the CPC while processing the return of income under section 143(1)(a) of the income

Drishti Apparels, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle -29(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2552/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36

While proposing the return of income filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment year, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) noticed that though employees’ contribution to PF and ESI have not been deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant statutes governing such payments, in terms with section ... seeking rectification of mistake in the intimation issued, insofar as, it relates to disallowance of deduction claimed towards payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI. However, the rectification application was rejected by the CPC. Challenging such orders, assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. However, the disallowance

Adinath Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2519/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36

While processing the returns of income filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment years, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) noticed that though employees’ contribution to PF and ESI have not been deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant statutes governing such payments, in terms with section ... seeking rectification of mistake in the intimations issued, insofar as, it relates to disallowance of deduction claimed towards payments of employees contribution to PF and ESI. However, the rectification applications were rejected by the CPC. Challenging such orders, assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. However, the disallowances were

Adinath Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2518/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36

While processing the returns of income filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment years, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) noticed that though employees’ contribution to PF and ESI have not been deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant statutes governing such payments, in terms with section ... seeking rectification of mistake in the intimations issued, insofar as, it relates to disallowance of deduction claimed towards payments of employees contribution to PF and ESI. However, the rectification applications were rejected by the CPC. Challenging such orders, assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. However, the disallowances were

Wahid Khan, Bhiwadi vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Alwar /DCIT CPC Bengaluru, Alwar/CPC Bengaluru

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

ITA 166/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

circumstances of the case and in law the Id. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowance of employees contribution to PF and ESI based on Tax Audit Report which is not permissible u/s 143(1)(iv). Hence deserved to be deleted. 5. That On the facts ... noted from clause 20(b) of Form No. 3CD of Audit Report that the assessee has not deposited the employees contribution towards PF amount of Rs. 11,03,299/- and towards ESIC amounting to Rs. 3,85,237/- to the Government Account within the due date prescribed under the said

Atc Precision Components Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1804/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaatc Precision Components Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd., Cpc B-1/5,Janak Puri Bangalore Delhi-110 058 Pan No. Aafca 2867 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.05.2023

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

made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that though there was delay in depositing the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date prescribed but however all the dues have been deposited with the appropriate authorities before the filing

Anang Pal Jawla, Haryana vs. Circle 1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 579/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2019-20 Anang Pal Jawla, Vs Ao, Advocate Vijay Kumar Gupta, Circle-1, Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad. Main Bazar, Faridabad, Haryana – 121 004. Pan: Aqapj1168Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Bhupendera Anant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.579/Del/2022 For Ay 2019-20 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1040963669(1) Dated 17.03.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 07.07.2020 By The Ld. Acit, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Since The Issue Is Already A Covered Issue, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal On Hearing The Ld. Dr & Based On Materials Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendera Anant, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd vs CIT reported in 448 ITR 518. It is not in dispute that the employees contribution to PF and ESI were deposited by the assessee to the Government account beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective acts but well before

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

years return of income when the provisions of originally made. With regard to disallowance u/s 36(1)(v) made towards delay in depositing employees contribution to PF, the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bambay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT 14 vs. Gopinath Engineering ... Tribunal. 4. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that the issue of delayed remittance the employees contribution to PF is now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chechmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) with regard

S Zhaveri Pharmakem Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

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

ITA 254/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S S Zhaveri Pr. Cit-8, Pharmakem Pvt. Ltd., The Asstt. Cit, Circle-8(2)(2), Vs. 109, Shiv Smruti Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chambers, 49, Dr. Annie Mumbai-400020. Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan No. Aajcs 0402 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Vasanti Patel Revenue By : Mihita Nair Sr Dr : Date Of Hearing 03/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Mihita Nair Sr DR
Section 202Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

taxmann.com 178 has held that Ltd. v. CIT reported in 143 taxmann.com 178 Ltd. v. CIT reported in 143 taxmann.com 178 employees contribution to PF and ESI paid after due date employees contribution to PF and ESI paid after due date employees contribution to PF and ESI paid after

M/S. Centrum Microcredit Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT Centralized Processsing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1602/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Centrum Microcredit Ltd., Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 801, Centrum House, Cpc, Bengaluru-560500. Vs. Vidyanangari, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. Pan No. Aafcn 3506 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ravikant S. Pathak Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant S. PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Kamal Dixit, Haryana vs. AO Ward-2, Sonepat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 846/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Kamal Dixit, Vs Ao, 240, Vpo-Bhainsra Wali, Ward-2, Ballabgarh, Sonepat. Faridabad, Haryana – 121 004. Pan: Astpd3725G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.846/Del/2022 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1035026042(1) Dated 23.08.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 23.03.2020 By The Ld. Acit, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. At The Outset, We Find That The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Before Us Is Delayed By 189 Days. In View Of The Relaxation Provided By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Light Of Covid 19 Pandemic, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd vs CIT reported in 448 ITR 518. It is not in dispute that the employees contribution to PF and ESI were deposited by the assessee to the Government account beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective acts but well before

M/S. Sainik Intelligence & Security Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 255/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Sainik Intelligence & Security Pvt. Asst. Dit, Centralized Processing Ltd. Centre, Bangalore Shoop 25, Suraj Plaza, Chandulal Wadi, Vs. Station Road, Bhayander (W), Thane-401 101 Pan/Gir No. Aaics 5302 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Ms. Dinkle Haria Assessee By Revenue By : Shri A. N. Bhalekar : 02.05.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Respondent: Shri A. N. Bhalekar
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2020-21. 2. The assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs.196,75,747/- towards employees contribution to PF and ESI, made by the Central Processing Centre, Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) u/s. 143(1) of the Act and confirmed ... total income for the reason 2 M/s. Sainik Intelligence & Security Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. DIT that the assessee has made payment of employees contribution towards PF and ESIC after the due date under the relevant Acts but before the due date for filing of the return of income. The assessee

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 94/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. RuniPal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.50,48,797/- on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESI u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. 2 M/S. READY ROTI INDIA PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 2.1 Brief ... assessee prayed for deletion of addition confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) amounting to 50,48,979/- with regard to the deposition of employees contribution towards PF and ESI for which the ld. AR has filed the written submission. ‘’1. At the outset it is submitted that various High Courts including

Ravi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 72/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Itr. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Of Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,995/- Being Double Addition Of Speculative Income.’’

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

Rs.1,84,92,800/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO made an addition of Rs.2,28,891/- towards belated payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed ... observing as under:- ‘’7.15 In view of the above, in the instant case, since the assessee made the payment of employees contribution to PF & ESI to the respective accounts beyond the due date (s) stipulated u/s 3 SHRI RAVI AGARWAL VS DCIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 591/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvijay Bag Singh Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Rajpurohit Plot No. 4, Income Tax, Vikas Bunglow Behind Cpc Bengaluru Bahari Petrol Pump, 560100 Sion, Trombay Road Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adqpr7848L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vipul Shriyan Respondent By : Vranda U Matkari Date Of Hearing 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.12.2022 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Commissioner Of Income Appeals National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Ld Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding Disallowance Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1001 (The Act) By Cpc, Bengaluru Under Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act In Respect Of Employees Contribution Made To The Provided Fund & Other Funds Which Was Paid After The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Law But Before The End Of The Financial Year & Due Date Of Filling Return Of Income Is Covered U/S 430 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cita Erred In Noting That The Hearing Notices Were Remained Uncompiled While The Appellant Had Uploaded Request For Adjournment Against Notice Dated

For Appellant: Vipul ShriyanFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 430Section 44A

P a g e | 1 Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit Vs. ACIT, CPC Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F

Ashok Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 186/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

considered rival submissions and perused material on record. 8. In so far as assessee’s claim that deduction on account of payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI has to be allowed, in case, it is paid before the due date of filing of return, I am unable ... Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. – CIT-I [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), wherein, it has been held that unless employees contribution to PF and ESI is not deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant statutes governing such payment, the amount in question

ITO, Ward-5, Rohtak vs. Rajbir L/H Shri Rajesh, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 2576/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

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

Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that employees contribution to PF are governed by the provisions of Section 43B and not by Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Income