← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh, Hq Sirhind vs. Partap Industries Limited, Rajpura

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 464/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 464/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Partap Industries Limited, बनाम Rajpura Ward-1, New Libra Kothi, Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Road, Sirhind Hq. Sirhind, 140406 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcp0384Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Shri Raman Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 5

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income Tax- 15(3)(1) Uhde House, Room No.460, Vs. 4Th Floor, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (W.), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400083. M. K. Road, Pan: Aaacu1416H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M. M. Golvala A/W. Shri Hormuzd Jamshedji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Its Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059614356(1) Dated 11/01/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golvala a/w. Shri HormuzdFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

long pending controversy of several years about the claim of overriding effect of Sec. 43B over Sec.36(1) (va) relating to employees contribution of PF & ESI amounts remitted by the assessee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pronounced a detailed judgment after thorough consideration of the legislative history ... case law (supra.)discussed in the preceding paragraphs , I am of the considered viewthat, the appellant is not entitled to claim deduction towards employees contribution to PF to the extent of Rs.1,08,49,643/-, since the same was paid beyond the due dates specified as per the PF

Gaurav International, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 49(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3315/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3315/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Gaurav International Acit B-34, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Vs. Circle-49(1), Phase-1, West, New Delhi. Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaafg5920D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 23.10.2023 for the AY 2017-18 in sustaining the disallowance made in respect of employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. I.T.A.No.3315/Del/2023 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 309/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.309/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Oakton Global Technology Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Centre (India) (P) Ltd, Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco8824H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(5)

made addition towards TP adjustment suggested by the TPO. The Assessing Officer had also made addition towards belated payment of employees contribution to PF and addition towards credit balance written back and disallowance of professional tax payable u/s 43B of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. The assessee has filed ... development services to the AE and interest receivable on receivables from AE. The DRP had also upheld the addition made towards disallowance of employee contribution to PF u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961 . Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Anoop Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Faridabad

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

ITA 3733/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumaranoop Singh, Vs. Ito, 2097, Parvatia Colony, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bmaps2771R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. John Energy Ltd., Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 911/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Abad upholding the addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit and disallowance of employees contribution to PF of Rs.45,05,019/- is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred ... account unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit and ITA Nos.911 & 711/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 3 of 8 disallowance of employees contribution to PF of Rs,45,05,019/- may please be allowed on the work-over rigs.” 3. Firstly, we are taking up Revenue’s appeal. The return

M/S. John Energy Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT., Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 711/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Abad upholding the addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit and disallowance of employees contribution to PF of Rs.45,05,019/- is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred ... account unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit and ITA Nos.911 & 711/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 3 of 8 disallowance of employees contribution to PF of Rs,45,05,019/- may please be allowed on the work-over rigs.” 3. Firstly, we are taking up Revenue’s appeal. The return

Stellar Refractories Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

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

ITA 420/NAG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)

dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5. The learned A.R. further submitted as follows:– “1) payment of employee contribution to PF for the month of November-2019 was due on 15-12-2019 which was made on 16-12-2019, the next

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 819/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 15JSection 36(1)(va)Section 80J

assessee prayed for deletion of addition of Rs. 97,22,957/- which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) towards belated payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld.AR of the assessee relied upon the following Jurisdictional ... Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if the employees contribution to PF and ESI has been paid beyond the time prescribed under the relevant PF Act, then same is not allowable under section 43B even after the payment

M/S. Advaith Motors Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 525/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Vinay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinath S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Thus, as per the clear language of the aforesaid provisions, unless employees' contribution to PF and ESI are deposited within the due date prescribed under the PF and ESI Acts, not only the assessee would get no deduction under section ... original form, sans the amendment, had no ambiguity, as it clearly provided that no deduction in respect of employees' contribution to PF and ESI can be granted unless such contribution is remitted within the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts. Therefore, retrospective or prospective application of the amendment

M/S. Methods India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, this issue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 475/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(v)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

M/S Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4810/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Motilal Oswal Home Finance Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit, Circle – 4(1)(1) Motilal Oswal Tower Room No. 649, 6Th Floor Prabhadevi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400024 Mumbai 400020 Pan/Gir No. : Aamca0234H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 438

under: 3.7 I have carefully considered the explanation of the Appellant. The Appellant has raised contentions of allowability of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF u/s 37(1) of the Act. Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has deliberated on the allowability ... delayed deposit of employees contribution of PF. Relevant extract of the same is provided below: 53 The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law - in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(1), Chennai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 797/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Srinivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40a

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A ’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1220/CHNY/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Srinivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40a

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A ’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार

Epiroc Mining India Private Limited (Previously Known As Epiroc Mining India Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 50/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.50/Pun/2024 (E-Appeal) "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Divyapalsinh Tejpalsinh Jadeja, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 579/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

dated 12/10/2022 in civil appeal number 2833 of 2016, wherein it was held that the due date for deductibility of employees contribution to PF. ESI funds etc. applies u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and Section 43B of the Act does not cover employees' contributions to PF ... High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation in Tax Appeal No. 637 of 2013 wherein it was held that employees’ contribution to PF not covered by Section 43B is also allowable as deduction u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act, if paid within the due date

Divyapalsinh Tejpalsinh Jadeja, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 578/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

dated 12/10/2022 in civil appeal number 2833 of 2016, wherein it was held that the due date for deductibility of employees contribution to PF. ESI funds etc. applies u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and Section 43B of the Act does not cover employees' contributions to PF ... High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation in Tax Appeal No. 637 of 2013 wherein it was held that employees’ contribution to PF not covered by Section 43B is also allowable as deduction u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act, if paid within the due date

M/S Barnala Builders and Consultant, Zirakpur vs. DCIT/ACIT (Cen)-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 274/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 27/12/2021 wherein the limited issue relates to sustenance of disallowance of employees contribution towards PF / ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Act pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19. Be it noted that this Hon’ble Tribunal vide ... disallowance of Rs. 2,46,952/- made under section 143(1) by the CPC on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employees contribution of PF / ESI within the prescribed due date as per the Section 36(1)(va) of the Act is strictly in accordance with

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Company Circle-II(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 805/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.805/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Express Publications (Madurai) P. Ltd, Vs. Dcit No.29, Express Garden, Company Circle Ii (1) Second Main Road Industrial Estate, Now Corporate Circle 2 (1) Ambattur, Chennai 600 058. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 0842D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Abirami Narendranath, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Saujanya Ranjan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. Abirami Narendranath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saujanya Ranjan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40a

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार

M/S. Signotech Systems Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 514/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Signotech Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, L-151, 2Nd Floor, Ck Pearl Complex, Circle – 6(1)(1), 14Th Cross, 5Th Main, Bengaluru. 6Th Sector, Hsr Layout, Bengaluru – 560 102. Pan : Aavcs 6085 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

employees’ contribution to the welfare fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act was set out. Assessee submits that it had paid employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI for the months April, May and June, 2019, within the prescribed due date. However, in the audit report, the year