“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

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 350/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 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: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

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

justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,65,591/- us 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2/24(x) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESI.” 3. Ground “whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2,65,591/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESI. AO Pg 3-5 CIT(A) Pg33-37 Facts& Submission:- 1. The AO observed that assessee has deposited the amount of employee

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

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

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 200/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

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

Shreeji Trans Logistics Ltd., Thane vs. CIT (A), CPC, Banglore

In the result, th same. In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are e grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed

ITA 388/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Ita No. 388 To 390/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2019-2020 Shreeji Translogistics Ltd., Cit(Appeals), Plot No. 107, Shreeji Krupa, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Sector 19-C, Phase-Ii Vashi, Centre, Thane-400705 Delhi. Pan No. Aaecs 3602 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Anil Sant, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Anil Sant, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)

tune of Rs. 9,84,475/ Tax Department to the tune of Rs. 9,84,475/- being alleged being alleged belated payment of Employees contribution to PF & ESIC as belated payment of Employees contribution to PF & ESIC as belated payment of Employees contribution to PF & ESIC as the payments were

Spick-N-Span Services, Mum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(3)(1) Erstwhile Ward-27(3)(3), Mum

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 14/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.14/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.15/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Spick-N-Span Services बिधम/ Income Tax Officer Ward- 41(3)(1) (Erstwhile 409, 4Th Floor, Sej Plaza, Vs. Marve Road Malad (W) Ward- 27(3)(3) Mumbai- 400064 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- 400051 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs2733G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar Das. Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 16.11.2022 For Ay 2011-12 & Ay 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 48,19,696/- For The Ay 2011-12 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Herein After ‘The Act’) & Rs. 1,48,61,729/- (Ay 2018- 19) U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Both On Account Of Disallowance Of Employees Contribution Of Provident Fund & Esic U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act. Since, The Issue

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das. Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Prime Comfort Porducts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

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

ordinate Bench in case of M/s. P.R. Packaging Services – ITA No.2376/Mum/2022 dated 07.12.2022. He submitted, since, the 3 ITA No.530/Del./2023 employees contribution to PF and ESI is not in the nature of expenditure, the auditor has not reported it as disallowable expenditure in the tax audit report. 6. Without ... case of BBG Metal Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT – ITA No.112/CTK/2022 dated 17.11.2022. Finally, he submitted, the due date for payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI should be calculated with reference to the due date for repayment of salary. 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused material

M/S. Karnail Singh & Company, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

held under trust and should be paid within time of the relevant act otherwise there will be disallowance under section 43B. The employees contribution to PF and ESI unless remitted to the Government account within the due date as provided under the relevant statutes, in terms with section ... should be paid within the prescribed time/due date given in the relevant act otherwise there will be disallowance under section 43B. Thus, the employees contribution to PF and ESI unless remitted to the Government account within the due date as provided under the relevant statutes, in terms with section

M/S. Karnail Singh & Company, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 25/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Principle Security and Allied Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 280/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhprinciple Security & Vs. Circle 13(1)(2) Allied Services Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Limited, 707 Hubtown Floor, M.K. Road, Viva Shankar Wadi, New Marine Lines Western Express Mumbai – 400 020 Highway, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai – 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp2691A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rahul K. Hakani Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Nfac, Delhi Dated 29.12.2022 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Intimation Issued By The Id Ao Cpc Bangalore W'S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Erroneous / Without Jurisdiction Since Additions On Issues Where Two Views Are Possible Cannot Be Made. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,59,10,546/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esic Was Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return. 3. The Appellant Prays That The Adjustment Made In The Intimation Order U/S143(1) Of The Act May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Rahul K. HakaniFor Respondent: V.S. Mahajan

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

erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,59,10,546/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the employees contribution to PF and ESIC was deposited before the due date of filing of return. 3. The appellant prays that the adjustment made in the intimation order

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1507/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 127/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Ircon International Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, C-4, Distt.-Centre, Saket Special Range-04, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aaaci0684H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

respect of delayed payment of the Employee’s contribution to the Provident Fund and ESI, not appreciating that the Employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 36(l)(va) and not by section 43B of the Income

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

ITA 127/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

Ashirbad Infrastructure Ser & Faci Management Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 115/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(vi)

while processing 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 were paid beyond the date prescribed under the relevant statutes governing such payment, however, the assessee had claimed deduction of such ... disallowance. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance. 10. I have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. 11. Undisputedly, employees contribution to PF and ESI were not remitted to the government account within the period prescribed under the relevant statutes governing such payment. Section

M/S. Geekay Securities Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1842/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Geekay Securities Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle-3(1)(1) Services Private Limited 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, G-11, Tulsani Chambers, M.K. Marg, Free Press Journal Marg Mumbai- 400020 Nariman Point, Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccg1282D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram Respondent By : Smt. Anne Varghese Date Of Hearing 17.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Nfac, Delhi Dated 08.09.2021 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In The Circumstances & Facts Of Our Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Dcit, Cpc In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs.1,21,39,702/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Despite The Fact That The Said Amount Of Rs1,21,39,702/- Comprises Of Two Components, An Amount Of Rs.64,43,502/- Which Pertains To Employer'S Contribution To Provident Fund/Lwf & An Amount Of Rs.56,96,200/- Which Pertains To Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund / Lwf & Not Considering The Conclusive Evidence Submitted In Its Written Submission & Supporting Paper Book 2.. In The Circumstances & Facts Of Our Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld Dcit, Cpc In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs. 56,96,200/-

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Smt. Anne Varghese

Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

P a g e | 1 M/s Geekay Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1) THE INCOME TAX

DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hanon Climate Systems India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Visteon Climate Systems Limited India Ltd), New Delhi

Accordingly decided against the Revenue while ground no. 2 is decided in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of revenue is allowed partly

ITA 5813/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5813/Del/2018, A.Y. 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 35

grounds 4 and 5 of the Appellant are hereby allowed.” 4. Further, Ld. AO had made disallowance in regard to late deposit of employees contribution to PF beyond the due date which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High

Aijal Handicrafts Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 312/JPR/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena, Addl.CIT

Section 36(1)(va)

Katiji, 167 ITR 471. 3.1 The solitary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal relates to disallowance of late deposit of employees contribution towards PF and ESI amounting to Rs.3,42,152/-. It is noted that the payment of contribution towards ESI and PF though was late ... restore the issue to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication by providing adequate opportunity of being heard on the ground that employees contribution to PF and ESI has been paid in some cases within grace period provided under the respective Act and also in some cases salary

Arvind, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 371/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

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

Fund (PF) amounting to Rs.23,32,110. 6. While processing the return filed by the assessee, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) noticed that employees contribution to PF and ESI was not paid within the due date prescribed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, the deduction claimed ... No.371/Del./2023 8. I have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. 9. Undoubtedly, the assessee has not paid the employees contribution to PF and ESI within the due date prescribed under the statute governing the payment of PF and ESI. Though, there was delay in payment

Elcon (India), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 306/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020

Sadakat Ali, Prop S P Enterprises, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1709/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018

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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH

Khyber Industries Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 31/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 250oSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE