← 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. Sun Manufacturing Solutions, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 712/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions The Income Tax Officer Sy. No. 151, 11Th Main Road Ward – 6(2)(1) Peenya Indl. Area, 3Rd Phase Bengaluru Vs. Laggere Village Bengaluru 560058 Pan No : Abyfs6836P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 30/09/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.3,75,531/-, Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 28.03.2019. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.7,65,472/- Was Made U/S M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions Page 2 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts. The Assessee Filed A Rectification Petition Objecting To The Disallowance Made & In The Rectification Order, The Addition Was Sustained To The Extent Of Rs.3,75,531/-.

For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Rs.7,65,472/- was made u/s M/s. Sun Manufacturing Solutions Page 2 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that the employees contribution to PF and ESI has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Acts. The assessee filed a rectification petition ... Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 4. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has remitted the employees contribution of PF & ESI before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act, even though the contributions were paid in few instances beyond the due date prescribed

Shiv Sagar Restaurant Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2442/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshiv Sagar Restaurant Vs. A.O.,Cpc Pvt Ltd,Dharam Prem Bangalore, Apartments,Nehru Road, Karnataka-560500 Vile Parle(East) Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs1285M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jigar Sangani.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Samruddhi Hande.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter ‘The Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Jigar Sangani.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Samruddhi Hande.DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Tribunal reads as follows:- "7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not remitted the employees' contribution of PF of Rs.1,06,190/- and ESI of Rs.16,055/- totaling to Rs.1,22,245/- before the due date specified under the respective ... Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income

Axis Carriers & Logisticas Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

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

ITA 159/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh K. MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Tribunal reads as follows:- "7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not remitted the employees' contribution of PF of Rs.1,06,190/- and ESI of Rs.16,055/- totaling to Rs.1,22,245/- before the due date specified under the respective ... Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income

Paramount Health Services and Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 2547/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.2547 /Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2017-18) Paramount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ITA No.2547/Mum/2021 AY. 2017-18 1 Paramount Health Services & Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) NFAC IN THE INCOME

Assort Staffing Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst Dir of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not remitted the 4 ITA.NO. 95/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) Assort Staffing Services Pvt. Ltd., employees' contribution of PF of Rs.1,06,190/- and ESI of Rs.16,055/- totaling to Rs.1,22,245/- before the due date specified under the respective ... Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income

Ken Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 24/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

wherein the disallowance of Rs.5,57,303/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act was made on the ground that the employees contribution to PF has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Acts. 3. The assessee accepted a part of disallowance so made ... challenged the addition of Rs.3,16,857/-, being employees contribution to PF by filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) contending that the disallowance should not be made, since the above said payment has been made prior to the due date for filing return of income prescribed

M/S. Valdel Engineers and Constructors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 126/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. Sattva Media and Consulting Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 124/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Years : 2019-20 M/S. Sattva Media & Consulting Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 294/295, 2Nd Floor, Commissioner Of Amarjyothi Layout, Income Tax, Opp. Egl Tech Park, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Domlur, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aancs2959Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Sudheendhra B R, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. General Ground 1.1 The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Nfac Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Sudheendhra B R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act. In the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act, the CPC disallowed the employees' contribution to PF and ESI to the tune of Rs. 94,49,275/-. The reason for making the disallowance was that the assessee did not remit ... employees' contribution to PF and ESI within the due date specified under the respective Acts. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that the Page 3 of 7 assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before

Mrm Solutions, Shivamogga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 707/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Solutions, Shivamogga Page 2 of 7 Act was made on the ground that the employees contribution to PF and ESI has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Acts. The assessee filed a rectification petition objecting to the disallowance made, but the same ... rejected. 3. The assessee challenged the addition of Rs.16,00,665/-, being employees contribution to PF & ESI, by filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) contending that the disallowance should not be made, since the above said payments have been made prior to the due date for filing return of income

Sri Gajanana Enterprises, Shivamogga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 706/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Gajanana Enterprises, Shivamogga Page 2 of 7 Act was made on the ground that the employees contribution to PF and ESI has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Acts. The assessee filed a rectification petition objecting to the disallowance made, but the same ... rejected. 3. The assessee challenged the addition of Rs.20,74,749/-, being employees contribution to PF & ESI by filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) contending that the disallowance should not be made, since the above said payments have been made prior to the due date for filing return of income

R.P..Synthetics, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2264/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sanjay Gargr.P. Synthetics The Dcit Plot No.. R.67, Midc Cpc, Bangalore, Thane Belapur Road, Vs. Karnataka-560500 Navi Mumbai-400 701 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaefr7566C Assessee By : Shri Vinay Devi, Ar Revenue By : Shri. Anil Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Devi, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Gupta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

confirming the action of AO who disallowed/added back a sum of Rs. 1,10,62,263/- on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred

Dicitex Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1715/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) & Could Be Allowed As Deduction.

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that assessee had remitted the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI much before the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act, though the same has been remitted belatedly beyond ... Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., reported in 368 ITR 749 had held that 14 ITA No.1715 & 1716/Mum.2021 M/s. Dicitex Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., employees contribution to PF & ESI if remitted within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act for filing the income tax returns, would be allowed as deduction

Triton Maritime Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT -5(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1628/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2019-20
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

determining total income at Rs.91,35,360/-, wherein the ld. CPC Bangalore had added a sum of Rs.9,69,233/- on account of employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. We find that assessee had suomoto disallowed the provident fund and ESI dues in respect ... before us had even filed additional ground seeking for reduction of voluntarily disallowance of Rs.9,69,233/- made in respect of employee contribution to PF & ESI in the return of income. We find that this additional ground goes to the root of the matter and the facts relevant for adjudication

Shankar Packgings Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 316/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Shankar Packagings Vs. National Faceless Appeal Limited , 303, Turf Centre, Delhi Estate, Shakti Mills New Delhi Lane,Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West) Mumbai – 400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8076P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Apurva R. Shah Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In Not Adjudicating The Appellant'S Claim On Merits Of The Issue But Merely Holding That The Appellant Ought To Have Filed An Appeal Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) & Not Against The Order Rejecting The Proposal U/S. 154. 2. In Not Appreciating That By The Said Action The Nfac Has Therefore Approved An Incorrect Act Done Whilst Processing The Return Filed.

For Appellant: Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ITA No. 316/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 1 M/s Shankar Packagings Limited Vs. NFAC, Delhi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Bell Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 655/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sanketh Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessed income u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act was on account of disallowance of sum of Rs.19,52,181 being late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... first appellate authority. It was stated that the assessee had paid the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI prior to the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessee is entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF

M/S. Almech Facades Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC`, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2087/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Tribunal reads as follows:- "7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not remitted the employees' contribution of PF of Rs.1,06,190/- and ESI of Rs.16,055/- totaling to Rs.1,22,245/- before the due date specified under the respective ... Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2056/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Tribunal reads as follows:- "7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not remitted the employees' contribution of PF of Rs.1,06,190/- and ESI of Rs.16,055/- totaling to Rs.1,22,245/- before the due date specified under the respective ... Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income

Vinayak Hirji Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2012/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(Va)Section 36(1)(va)

Tribunal reads as follows:- "7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not remitted the employees' contribution of PF of Rs.1,06,190/- and ESI of Rs.16,055/- totaling to Rs.1,22,245/- before the due date specified under the respective ... Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income

M/S. Aashia Products, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2007/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Tribunal reads as follows:- "7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not remitted the employees' contribution of PF of Rs.1,06,190/- and ESI of Rs.16,055/- totaling to Rs.1,22,245/- before the due date specified under the respective ... Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1986/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Tribunal reads as follows:- "7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not remitted the employees' contribution of PF of Rs.1,06,190/- and ESI of Rs.16,055/- totaling to Rs.1,22,245/- before the due date specified under the respective ... Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income