← 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

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bansal Steels Power Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross

ITA 4891/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4891/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 बनाम Dcit, Bansal Steels Power Ltd. Circle 4(1), Vs. 35, Jhandewalan, Motia Khan, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacg1010F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Co No.230/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4891/Del/2024) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Bansal Steels Power Ltd. Dcit, 35, Jhandewalan, Motia Khan, Vs. Circle 4(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacg1010F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 2Section 79Section 79(2)(c)

these grounds need not be adjudicated. 9. Lastly coming to the ground no.4 of the cross objection which is in respect of the employees contribution to PF & ESI, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance following the decision

Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solution Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 234/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR
Section 244ASection 250

no.3 raised by the assessee reads as under: “3. The CIT(A) has also erred in confirming Rs.18,412/-being late payment of employees contribution to PF & ESIC, your Appellant submits that as per provisions of Law and before the amendment and the Supreme Court Judgement the payment of employees

Alankit Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

relating to confirmation of adjustment of Rs.70,67,205/- u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI made in the intimation u/s.143(1), without appreciating the fact that employees contribution to PF and ESI are recovered from the employees ... disbursement of salary and wages. Accordingly, due date for deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI i.e. within 15 days of the following month during which salary and wages was actually disbursed among the employees, thus he submitted that employees contribution to PF and ESI was actually deposited

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

account of delay in payment of PF & ESIC of Rs. 13,761/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant has deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESIC before filing of income tax return due as per Section 139(1) of the I. T. Act. 3.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred ... appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Alom Extrusion Ltd. 319 ITR 306 has held that if the employees contribution to PF & ESIC is paid before the filing of IT return than there would not be any disallowance under Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO-7(1) (Erstwhile ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2712/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

account of delay in payment of PF & ESIC of Rs. 13,761/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant has deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESIC before filing of income tax return due as per Section 139(1) of the I. T. Act. 3.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred ... appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Alom Extrusion Ltd. 319 ITR 306 has held that if the employees contribution to PF & ESIC is paid before the filing of IT return than there would not be any disallowance under Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s

Virinchi Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1185/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1185/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Virinchi Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacv6672N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Mrs. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 09/10/2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act, In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Drp Dated 19/09/2024 Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The A.Y 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Mrs. U Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153

Virinchi Ltd 17. Ground No.4 is regarding the disallowance made on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF & ESI. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee itself has made a Suo motto disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF ... direct the Assessing Officer to verify the fact and this claim of the assessee of Suo motto disallowance of belated payment of employees contribution to PF & ESI and accordingly, delete the addition, if it is found to be double disallowance. 19. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 1903/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

audit report issued in form number 3CD by the tax auditor, observed that the AO has rightly made disallowances towards employees’ contribution to PF and ESI because the payments have been made to respective funds beyond the due date specified under the Acts and consequently said payments cannot be allowed ... have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The AO disallowed the employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s.36(1)(va) read with section 43B read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act on the basis of tax audit

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 1902/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

audit report issued in form number 3CD by the tax auditor, observed that the AO has rightly made disallowances towards employees’ contribution to PF and ESI because the payments have been made to respective funds beyond the due date specified under the Acts and consequently said payments cannot be allowed ... have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The AO disallowed the employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s.36(1)(va) read with section 43B read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act on the basis of tax audit

Smartenviro Systems Private Limited, Pune vs. I.T.O, Pune

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

ITA 1144/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

placed before us. We notice that the assessee is Proprietary Limited Company and there was disallowance of Rs.16,336/- for late payment of employees contribution to PF and disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) at Rs.15,09,924/- for late payment of Employers contribution to PF. We however going through the impugned ... Private Limited ld.CIT(A) has enhanced the disallowance made towards employees contribution from Rs.16,336/- to Rs.3,06,802/-. 6. So far as employees contribution to PF and ESI which has been deposited after the due date amounting to Rs.3,06,802/- is concerned, the same deserves to be disallowed

Narayansinthy Gajendra Patro, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 13(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad

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

ITA 698/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Srikanth PolireddyFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

then, said contribution can be allowed. The Tribunal after considering 9 ITA.No.698/Hyd./2025 the relevant facts has held that, disallowance of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/sec.36(1)(va) r.w.43B is highly debatable issue, which can be considered while processing the return of income u/sec.143 ... case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs., CIT [2022] 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, employees contribution to PF and ESI 10 ITA.No.698/Hyd./2025 beyond the due date prescribed under relevant Acts is not allowable as deduction u/sec.36(1)(va) r.w.s.43B

Sri Sainath Associates, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

I.T.A. No.649/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL

DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata vs. Spml Infra Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 440/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 13Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 80Section 80I

assessee. Respectfully following the decision income in the case of Checkmate (supra) the action of the AO in disallowing the deduction of employees contribution to PF & ESI beyond the dates in the specified Acts under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) is upheld. In the result, the appeal

Bhel Lcc Society Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 732/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bhel Lcc Society Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaatb6430D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Sai Keerthana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA Sri Sai KeerthanaFor Respondent: : Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 270ASection 36

27/03/2019 whereby an addition/adjustment of Rs.27,72,271/- was made on account of delayed payment of Employees Contribution to PF. The case of the assessee was subsequently selected for scrutiny under CASS and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26/12/2019 at a total ... addition/adjustment of Rs.27,72,271/- by making disallowance u/s 36 which is debited by the assessee to the P&L Account towards Employees Contribution to PF. This disallowance/adjustment were made by the CPC as under: 6. Thus, the claim of the assessee towards the Employees Contribution to PF paid after

Satya Pratap Singh Kunwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad, Haryana

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

ITA 984/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)

Rs.3,71,171/- in view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI made in the intimation u/s 143(1) and subsequently vide rectification order u/s 154, without appreciating the fact that employees contribution ... PF and ESI are recovered from the employees on 3 disbursement of salary and wages. Accordingly, due date for deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI i.e. within 15 days of the following month during which salary and wages was actually disbursed among the employees, thus he submitted that

Mcleod Russel India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 384/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 144C(1)Section 14A

disallowed u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. Accordingly the same is hereby directed to be deleted. iii) Disallowance of employees contribution to PF & ESI of Rs. 29,30,55,721/- deposited beyond the due dates prescribed in the respective acts: The Ld. A.R submits that ... recent decision in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that deposit of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI specified u/s 36(1)(va) on or before due date stipulated in the respective statute is essential condition for claiming deduction

Rajesh Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

ITA 971/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

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

Section 139(1) of the Act. While processing the said ITRs under Section 143(1) of the Act, the AO made disallowances/additions of employees' contributions to PF and ESI deposited after the due date specified in the PF and ESIC Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals, who upheld the above ... Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited (supra); i.e. 12th October, 2022 whereas other was not. The issue of disallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was highly de batable and there were divergent views from various Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunal. In the cases in hand

Rajesh Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

ITA 970/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

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

NFAC [‘CIT(A)']. 3. The sole issue in both appeals is that whether the Assessing Officer ('AO') was justified in making disallowances/additions of employees' contributions to PF and ESI deposited after the due date specified in the PF and ESIC Act while processing the Income Tax Returns ... under section 139(1) the Act. While processing the said ITRs under section 143(1) of the Act, the AO made disallowances/additions of employees'contributions to PF and ESI deposited after the due date specified in the PF and ESIC Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals, who upheld the above

Ranbir Singh Sorout, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 54/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43

Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 11.11.2022 for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 in sustaining the disallowance of employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Income Tax Act. Assessee in its appeals raised the following grounds: Grounds of ITA No.52/D/2023 ... Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT (A)'), grossly erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs.21,42,901/- of Employee Contribution of PF & ESI made under section 43(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is uncalled for, based on surmises and conjectures

Ranbir Singh Sorout, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 52/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43

Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 11.11.2022 for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 in sustaining the disallowance of employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Income Tax Act. Assessee in its appeals raised the following grounds: Grounds of ITA No.52/D/2023 ... Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT (A)'), grossly erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs.21,42,901/- of Employee Contribution of PF & ESI made under section 43(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is uncalled for, based on surmises and conjectures

Rajive Paul, Kollam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 444/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Soundararajan K.. Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajive Paul (Chungath Gold Plaza) .......... Appellant Ponnamma Chambers-Ii, Hospital Road Convent Junctn., Kollam 691001 [Pan: Ackpr7163H] Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri G. Surendranatha Rao, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranatha Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 145CSection 153ASection 154Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 246(1)(A)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide intimation dated 15.06.2019 by disallowing the 2 Rajive Paul belated remittance of employees contribution of PF & ESI of Rs. 9,67,260/-. On receipt of the said intimation, a petition u/s. 154 of he Act was filed and pursuant to the petition ... order passed by the Settlement Commission on 10.10.2023. While doing so, the AO had not made any addition on account of employees contribution to PF & ESI, which are made in the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act. However, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) challenging that