← 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

Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Astt. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore [DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai]

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1838/MUM/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhemkay Facilities Vs. Acit (Cpc), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [Dcit Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

assessee has received online query on 19.01.2019 in respect of eligibility of deposit received from the employees contributions towards PF and ESI and the details with respect to deposits/payments u/sec 36(1)(va) of the Act before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. Whereas, the assessee has deposited ... 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

M/S. Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1782/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’] erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.4,51,308/- u/s 36(1) (va) of the 1T Act out of Employees Contribution to PF & ESIC, made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(CPC), Banglore (AO) holding it as disallowance of expenditure indicated an the tax audit ... shall be directed to delete the addition. (b) The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.4.51,308/- made by the AO out employees contribution to PF & ESIC to the extent not credited to the respective funds on or before the due date specified in the respective Acts. The Appellant

Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1781/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’] erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.4,51,308/- u/s 36(1) (va) of the 1T Act out of Employees Contribution to PF & ESIC, made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(CPC), Banglore (AO) holding it as disallowance of expenditure indicated an the tax audit ... shall be directed to delete the addition. (b) The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.4.51,308/- made by the AO out employees contribution to PF & ESIC to the extent not credited to the respective funds on or before the due date specified in the respective Acts. The Appellant

Forcepoint Software Consulting India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 6/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailforcepoint Software Vs. Assistant Director Of Consulting India Pvt. Income Tax, Cpc Ltd., Level 2, Kalpataru Bangalore Synergy Opp. Grand Karnataka 560500 Hyatt, Santacruz (East) Mumbai- 400055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacw6672P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Renu KapoorFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

made adjustment in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act by way of disallowance of delayed remittance of employees contribution to PF & ESI to the amount of Rs.14,90,835/- beyond the due date as prescribed in the relevant Acts. 3. The assessee has filed the appeal before

Bishnucharan Bharat Mohanty, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1906/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Matrix Integreted Products Llp Vs. Adit(Cpc)-Ward 27 (2)(2) 213/5746, 2Nd Floor, Aruodya Darshan, Navi Mumbai 400 703 90 Feet Road Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 075 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Abcfm7193D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnucharan Bharat Mohanty, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (1)(2) B-4, Maichael Sadan, Laxmi Udyog Nagar, Mumbai 400051 Kanjur Marg (W) Mumbai 400078 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aqepm6398K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which relate to disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of that of the employees contribution to PF & ESI dues beyond the respective due dates but before the due date of filing return of income. 3. Brief facts of the case are that 143(1) adjustment ... wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has followed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd., and has held that employees contribution to PF & ESI up to the date of filing of return cannot be disallowed. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above

Matrix Integrated Products LLP, Mumbai vs. WD 27(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1905/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Matrix Integreted Products Llp Vs. Adit(Cpc)-Ward 27 (2)(2) 213/5746, 2Nd Floor, Aruodya Darshan, Navi Mumbai 400 703 90 Feet Road Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 075 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Abcfm7193D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnucharan Bharat Mohanty, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (1)(2) B-4, Maichael Sadan, Laxmi Udyog Nagar, Mumbai 400051 Kanjur Marg (W) Mumbai 400078 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aqepm6398K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which relate to disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of that of the employees contribution to PF & ESI dues beyond the respective due dates but before the due date of filing return of income. 3. Brief facts of the case are that 143(1) adjustment ... wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has followed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd., and has held that employees contribution to PF & ESI up to the date of filing of return cannot be disallowed. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above

Associated Hospitality and Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1747/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop, Vs. Ito-Ward1(1) 1 C/O Sterling Motor Compound, Nashik 422 002 Old Agra Road, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik 422001 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Acbfs2289L Assessee By : Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vishnu Sadu Gade, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3 C-3, 302, Ashar Estate, Thane 400 604 Shreenagar, Thane (W)-400604 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aabpg4702C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Associated Hospitality & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc 4Th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 062 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aafca7847P Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Vs. Cit(A)- (Faceless) 501, Blue Bell, Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aadfv0326M Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which relate to disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of that of the employees contribution to PF & ESI dues beyond the respective due dates but before the due date of filing return of income. 3. Brief facts of the case are that 143(1) adjustment ... wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has followed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd., and has held that employees contribution to PF & ESI up to the date of filing of return cannot be disallowed. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above

Vishnu Sadu Gade, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir. 3, Thane

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1746/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop, Vs. Ito-Ward1(1) 1 C/O Sterling Motor Compound, Nashik 422 002 Old Agra Road, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik 422001 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Acbfs2289L Assessee By : Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vishnu Sadu Gade, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3 C-3, 302, Ashar Estate, Thane 400 604 Shreenagar, Thane (W)-400604 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aabpg4702C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Associated Hospitality & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc 4Th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 062 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aafca7847P Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Vs. Cit(A)- (Faceless) 501, Blue Bell, Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aadfv0326M Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which relate to disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of that of the employees contribution to PF & ESI dues beyond the respective due dates but before the due date of filing return of income. 3. Brief facts of the case are that 143(1) adjustment ... wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has followed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd., and has held that employees contribution to PF & ESI up to the date of filing of return cannot be disallowed. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above

M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Mumbai vs. ITO 32 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1575/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop, Vs. Ito-Ward1(1) 1 C/O Sterling Motor Compound, Nashik 422 002 Old Agra Road, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik 422001 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Acbfs2289L Assessee By : Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vishnu Sadu Gade, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3 C-3, 302, Ashar Estate, Thane 400 604 Shreenagar, Thane (W)-400604 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aabpg4702C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Associated Hospitality & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc 4Th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 062 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aafca7847P Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Vs. Cit(A)- (Faceless) 501, Blue Bell, Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aadfv0326M Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which relate to disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of that of the employees contribution to PF & ESI dues beyond the respective due dates but before the due date of filing return of income. 3. Brief facts of the case are that 143(1) adjustment ... wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has followed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd., and has held that employees contribution to PF & ESI up to the date of filing of return cannot be disallowed. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above

Geeta Udyog, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 226/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgeeta Udyog Vs. Asst. Director Of Income 404, Gupta Bhavan, Tax, Cpc, Bengluru Ahmedabad Street, Centralized Processing Carnac Bunder, Centre, Income Tax Mumbai – 400009 Department, Bengaluru 560500 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfg1369H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

brief is that the A.O has made adjustment in the intimation u/s 143(1) by way of disallowance of delayed remittance of employees contribution to PF & ESI for the period 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 to the amount of Rs.5,49,046/-. The said amount was disallowed

M/S. Flag Security Services, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(1) -3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1924/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Flag Security Vs. Ito Ward-23(1)-3 Services, 101, Navjyot Mumbai Chs, Near Kadamwadi, St. Anthony Street, Vakola, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaff7581M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar Meena
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 436Section 43B

return of income on account of income u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act for late deposits of employees contribution to PF & ESI beyond the due date as prescribed in the relevant Act. The request for rectification dated 16.12.2019 was rejected

Smt. Nanjamma, Bengaluru vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 160/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 43B

returns were 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.18,84,715/- and Rs.28,34,740/-. The reason for making the disallowance was that the assessee ... remit the 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 assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date

Smt. Nanjamma, Bengaluru vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 159/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 43B

returns were 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.18,84,715/- and Rs.28,34,740/-. The reason for making the disallowance was that the assessee ... remit the 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 assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date

People Management Services, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 94/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bharghava S.N., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act was made on People Management Services, Mysuru Page 2 of 6 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. 3. The assessee challenged the above ... Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before me. 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 contribution was paid in few instances beyond the due date prescribed

M/S. Skava Electric Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(CPC), Bengaluru

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

ITA 79/BANG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Kusuma Yatish, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

made on M/s. Skava Electric Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 6 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. 3. The assessee challenged the above said addition by filing appeal before ... Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before me. 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 contribution was paid in few instances beyond the due date prescribed

M/S. Deliveryontime Logistics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax-CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 144/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankr, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

wherein the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the 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. 3. The assessee challenged the above said addition by filing appeal ... 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 extended due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act, even though the contributions were paid in few instances beyond the due date

M/S. Universal Bottler Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 141/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shanthappa, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

141/Bang/2022 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. 36,33,959/- and Rs. 22,92,230/-. The reason for making the disallowance was that the assessee ... remit the 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 assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date

M/S. Universal Bottler Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 140/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shanthappa, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

141/Bang/2022 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. 36,33,959/- and Rs. 22,92,230/-. The reason for making the disallowance was that the assessee ... remit the 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 assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date

Rajendran Sudagar, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 13/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Mysore Page 2 of 6 Act, wherein the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the 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. 3. The assessee challenged the above ... Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before me. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 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 contribution was paid in few instances beyond

M/S. Necron It Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 102/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

made on M/s. Necron IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 6 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. 3. The assessee challenged the above said addition by filing appeal before ... Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before me. 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 contribution was paid in few instances beyond the due date prescribed