“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

Smt. P. Kavitha, Legal Representative of Late Sri. P. Gopinatha Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 665/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

solitary issue raised in these appeals is, whether the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the order of the A.O. in disallowing employees’ contribution to PF & ESI, which was paid before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. 3. The brief ... account of disallowance of Rs.38,85,980 (for A.Y. A.Y.2018-2019) and Rs.13,02,627 (for A.Y. 2019-2020) being late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. 4. For assessment year 2018-2019, the assessee has filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the I.T.Act

P. Gopinatha Reddy (HUF), Through P. Vishwak Sena Reddy (Karta), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 661/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

solitary issue raised in this appeal is, whether the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the order of the A.O. in disallowing employees’ contribution to PF & ESI, which was paid before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. 3. Brief facts ... assessed income u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act was on account of disallowance of sum of Rs.92,16,030 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

Ikon Labels Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 658/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raj Kamal Ganeriwala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

solitary issue raised in this appeal is, whether the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the order of the A.O. in disallowing employees’ contribution to PF & ESI, which was paid before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. 3. Brief facts ... assessed income u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act was on account of disallowance of sum of Rs.7,18,309 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

Nuance Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)1), Bangalore

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

ITA 649/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)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.7,10,350 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

Sri Panati Vikramdeva Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 529/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

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

solitary issue raised in this appeal is, whether the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the order of the A.O. in disallowing employees’ contribution to PF & ESI, which was paid before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. 3. Brief facts ... income u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act was on account of disallowance of sum of Rs.1,48,39,420 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

Sasmos Het Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 636/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Susan Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

solitary issue raised in this appeal is, whether the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the order of the A.O. in disallowing employees’ contribution to PF & ESI, which was paid before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. 3. Brief facts ... assessed income u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act was on account of disallowance of sum of Rs.7,28,710 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

Roopa Sampath Kumar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 624/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 Ms. Roopa Sampath Kumar, The Assistant No. 103, Blue Cross Director Of Income Chambers, Tax, Infantry Road, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 Vs. Bangalore. 001. Pan: Ablpk3199A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) — Nfac, Delhi, In So Far Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Delhi Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Employees' Contribution Towards Provident Fund & Employees' State Insurance Of Rs.5,17,229/- Without

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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. 4,29,905/-. 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 assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing

Suraj Kiran Fabrics, 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, 306401, Rajasthan vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 23(3)(6)

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1604/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesuraj Kiran Fabrics Vs. Jurisdictional Ao 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, Ward23(3)(6) Rajasthan-306401 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs1244A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Jodhpur, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 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 Bbr (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 92/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)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.14,56,995 being late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority. It was contended that assessee has paid ... date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, it was submitted assessee is entitled to deduction of the employees’ contribution of PF and ESI having regard to the provision to section 43B of the Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment

Dhl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7286/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledhl Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit – 9(3)(1) 201A, Silver Utopia, Room No. 215, Cardinal Gracias Road 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Chakala, Andheri (E) Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400099 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6824A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat.CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92D

r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act dated 13.12.2017 with the transfer pricing adjustment, disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, disallowance of employees contribution to PF and ESI and interest on delayed payments of TDS. The assessee has filed the objections in Form No.35A against the draft assessment order with

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 81/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

income u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act was on account of disallowance of sum of Rs.2,19,52,518 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 3 M/s.Google India Private Limited. submitted that the assessee is entitled to deduction

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 639/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Rs.9,51,960 (for A.Y.2018-2019) and Rs.14,39,690 (for A.Y. 2019-2020) being late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the I.T.Act to CPC. The CPC rejected the rectification application. 5. Aggrieved ... rejecting the rectification application, the assessee preferred appeals before the 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

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 638/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 637/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 39/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

Bangalore would have disposed the appeal on merits of the case. 3.2 The learned AD IT (CPC) has erred in disallowing the employees contribution to PF and ESI paid well within the due date prescribed under the respective Act. There being no delay in making the payment. The disallowance made ... assessed loss u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act was on account of disallowance of sum of Rs.5,01,794 being late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. The assessee filed its response objecting to the proposed adjustments by stating that the employees contribution

M/S. Zion Hospitals and Research Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 448/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Zion Hospitals & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 9, “Le Villa”, Commissioner Of Kirti Layout, Income Tax, Kammanahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 084. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacz4369G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Loss Of Appellant In The Intimation U/S. 143[1] Of The Act, At Rs. 63,89,502/-As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 43B

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. 17,10,174/-. 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 assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing

S N Balasubramaniya, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 60/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep C, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan., Addl.CIT-DR

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

income determined u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act was on account of disallowance of Rs.66,00,980 being late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority. It was contended that assessee has paid ... date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, it was submitted assessee is entitled to deduction of the employees’ contribution of PF and ESI having regard to the provision to section 43B of the Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 59/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Technocon Builders, The Deputy # 337, Sf 8, Commissioner Of Karuna Complex, Income Tax, Sampige Road, Circle - 2 (2)(1), Malleshwaram, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Aaift3196L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajagopal, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Without Jurisdiction, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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.4,06,534/-. 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 assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing

Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 58/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., 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 totalling to Rs.4,40,126/- for the A.Y. 2018-19 & Rs.2,41,717/- for the A.Y. 2019-20 has been paid by the assessee beyond ... Tribunals. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before the tribunal. 4. The contention of the assessee was that it has remitted the employees contribution of PF & ESI before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act in both the years, even though the contributions were paid

Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 57/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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