“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

Devraj Beharnani, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, C-3, Jodhpur/ CPC, Bengaluru, Jodhpur

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

ITA 149/JODH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad149/Jodh/2022 (Assessment Year- 2020-21) Shri Devraj Beharnani Vs The Acit Atmaram Building Circle-3 Outside Sojati Gate Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adtpb 0305 M

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

total income of Rs.3,84,08,240/-. The deductions made from salaries of employees on account of Employees Contribution to PF & ESI, aggregating to Rs.1,44,813/- was disallowed and added to the total 3 ITA149/JODH/2022 DEVRAJ BEHARNANI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR income of during the course of assessment

M/S Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DIT /CPC, Bengeluru

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 200/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Mongra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40ASection 43B

addition as made by the DCIT CPC of Rs. 6,47,664/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution to PF while passing order u/s 143(1) of the Act even when the said amount was paid before the due date of filing

Aztec Shiva Handicrafts & Arts Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Jodhpur

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

ITA 161/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI

T Srinivasa Rao&Co, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 184/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

While processing the return, the CPC, Bangalore has made the addition of Rs.4,50,886/- on account of belated payments of employees contribution to PF and ESI after due date prescribed under the respective Acts. 3 I.T.A. No.175,179, 174 & 184/Viz/2022 , A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20 Tetali Anil Kumar, Visakhapatnam & Others ... total sum of Rs.4,50,886 made in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act towards disallowance of delayed remittance of Employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered that the disallowance is not warranted in as much

Sri Ranga Motors, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 179/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

Eastern Warehouse Corporation, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 175/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

Tetali Anil Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 174/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

Kavungal Vareed Itteera, Kerala vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 855/COCH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

judgment. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. 5. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that the employees contribution to PF and ESI should be remitted before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) i.e., on or before

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 92C

Checkmat Services (P)Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless the payment 11 ITA No.6056/Del./2017 towards employees contribution to PF and ESIC are paid within the time limit prescribed under the relevant statutes, as provided under explanation to section

Hi-Tech Instruments & Systems, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 15/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.15/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2019-20) Hi-Tech Instruments & Control Vs. Income Tax Officer, Systems, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadfh 9770 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri D. Madhusudhana Rao, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri D. Madhusudhana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR

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

submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO towards belated payment of employees’ contribution of PF & ESI in the respective fund accounts though they were remitted in the Government Treasury within the due date of filing the income tax return ... submitted that the lower authorities have rightly disallowed the payments made belatedly as per the respective Acts. He further submitted that the Employees Contribution to PF / ESI is allowed as deduction, if the same is deposited on or before the due date specified under the provisions of the respective Acts

Tempo Automobiles (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1836/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: None

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

I.T.A. No. 1836/Del/2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL

Jagannath Corporation Projects Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 167/CTK/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2020-2021 2021 Jagannath Jagannath Corporation Corporation Vs. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Projects Projects Pvt Pvt Ltd., Ltd., Plot Plot No.397, No.397, Sarangi Sarangi Bhawan Bhawan Garage Chhak, Lewis Road, Garage Chhak, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaccj 3043 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Kumar Agarwal Agarwalla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /02/2023

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Kumar AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, SR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, 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 under section 43B even after the payment ... 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

Kapil Kumar Nehra, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2677/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedikapil Kumar Nehra Vs. Ito 435/16, Nawal Cottage Ward – 2(2) Civil Line Near Pushpanjali Gurgaon Hospital, Gurgaon – 122 001

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

Bikash Patra, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward-4, Rourkela

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

ITA 49/CTK/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2018-19 Bikash Patra, B Bikash Patra, B-4 & 5, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Sector-20, 20, Rourkela, Rourkela, Rourkela Sundargarh Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aiypp 1174 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ca & S.K.Hota, Ar S.K.Agarwalla, Ca & S.K.Hota, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 30.7.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1034539422(1) For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, CA and S.K.Hota, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)Section 37(1)Section 43B

submitted by ld AR that there are three issues in assessee’s appeal, first was against the disallowance u/s.43B in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESI, second was against the disallowance of employer’s contribution to PF and ESI and third was against the disallowance in respect ... paras 7 to 9, it has been held as follows: “7. We have considered the rival submissions. In respect of the issue of employees contribution to PF and ESI, admittedly, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services

Naresh Kumar Chawla, Faridabad vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is 13

ITA 1188/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand

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

inter alia by disallowing of Rs. 45,88,351/- u/s. 36 (1)(va) on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution at PF & ESIC. 2.2. Aggrieved by the intimation issued u/s. 143(1), assessee filed appeal. The appeal was decided by NFAC vide order dated 01.04.2020 wherein the appeal ... various months. 6 ITA.No.1188/Del./2022 Naresh Kumar Chawla. AO was of the view that on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF & ESIC, the amounts cannot be allowed as deduction. He therefore by invoking provision of 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x), disallowed

M/S Nigam Jewels Pvt. Ltd., H-45, Sez 1, Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Baig (JCIT)

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

addition of Rs. 1,11,230/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed 2 M/s Nigam Jewels Pvt. Ltd. payment of employees contribution toward PF & ESI even when the same was paid before due date of filing of return. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify ... facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,11,230/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution toward PF & ESI by not appreciating that :- (1) The above addition is not on account of disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report

Bhargavi Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 419/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Ld. Cit (A). However, The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Consequently The Assessee Has Preferred The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Grounds Mentioned Hereunder :-

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena (Addl.CIT)

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

assessee relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT (A) in sustaining the addition on account of late deposit of employees contribution to PF & ESI. In this regard, the ld. A/R of the assessee relied upon the written submission filed by him and the same are reproduced herein below ... made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the IT Act in the case of the assessee on account of late deposit of employees contribution to PF & ESI. In this regard, the ld. A/R of the assessee categorically submitted that due to inadvertence, the tax auditor has mentioned figure ‘Zero

G S Build Estate P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 377/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return & By Not Following The Binding Decision Of Jurisdictional High Court Of Rajasthan That If The Employees Contribution Is Deposited Before Due Date, No Disallowance Could Be Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monish Choudhary, JCIT-DR

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

WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act of Rs.1,40,541/- on account of late deposit of Employees Contribution to PF without appreciating the fact that the same was deposited before due date of filing of return and by not following the binding decision of Jurisdictional ... erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.1,40,541/- as to the late deposition of employees contribution towards PF and ESI Act, however, the same has been deposited before filing the return of income. Thus the same should not be disallowed by the lower authorities

Indera Garments Pvt. Ltd, Rourkela vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

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

ITA 172/CTK/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.171 & 172/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2022 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019 2019 & 2019-2020 Indera Garments Pvt Ltd., Indera Garments Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Income Tax Dcit, Cpc, Income Tax Main Main Road, Road, Rourkela, Rourkela, Department, Bangalore Department, Bangalore Sundargarh Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaaci 9173 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,Ar Pawan Kumar Agarwal,Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

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

Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, 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 under section 43B even after the payment ... Nos.171 & 172/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 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 by Hon’ble Supreme Court

Indera Garments Pvt. Ltd, Rourkela vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

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

ITA 171/CTK/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

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

Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, 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 under section 43B even after the payment ... Nos.171 & 172/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 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 by Hon’ble Supreme Court