← All Phrases

“Section 34(1)(iv)”

Section References (mined)Section 34Section 34(1)(iv)232 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 34(1)(iv) is Sham Lal Narula (Dr.) v. CIT (53 ITR 151), cited in 100 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 34(1)(iv)

Sham Lal Narula (Dr.) v. CIT
53 ITR 151 · 1964 · Supreme Court
100
citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation does not form part of the compensation itself but is taxable as 'income from other sources', analogous to interest under Section 34 of the Act.

General Insurance Corporation of India v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & anr.
342 ITR 27 · 2012 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Exemptions under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act are available to general insurance companies.

SSPDL Ltd vs. DCIT, 33 TAXMANN.COM 447. 4) CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd., 33
32 Taxmann.com 276 · 2013 · High Court
15
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot make additions under Section 14A concerning investments in shares if the investment was not made for future benefit and was intended for business purposes.

R 217 (Delhi) (HC) 2. National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. CIT
393 ITR 666 · 2017 · High Court
12
citing judgments

A liability incurred by an assessee, even if disputed, is deductible in the year it is incurred and becomes enforceable, such as through an arbitration award or court decree, regardless of subsequent legal challenges or stays.

Judgments citing Section 34(1)(iv)

Sri Lakshmi Road Transport Company, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1209/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1209/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Sri Lakshmi Road Vs. Dy. Cit Transport Company Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aatfs6596A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

under: "When Parliament introduced Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, what was on the Statute Book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Technoblast Mining Corporation, Raigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 307/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.307/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Technoblast Mining Corporation 19, 2Nd Floor, Krishna Complex, Chaityana Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.)- 496 001 Pan: Aaeft5992Q

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Shri Jagdish Kumar Gulia, Bhopal vs. Thre Asstt.Directore of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 245/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

under: "When Parliament introduced Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, what was on the Statute Book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning ... attendant decisions, proceeded to observe, thus, "When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

M/S Daulataram Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mandideep vs. The ADIT/CPC, Bangalore

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 244/IND/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

under: "When Parliament introduced Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, what was on the Statute Book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's Page ... attendant decisions, proceeded to observe, thus, "When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Such Media Publication P Ltd, CIT (A) NFAC Delhi vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 66/IND/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)

under: "When Parliament introduced Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, what was on the Statute Book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning ... attendant decisions, proceeded to observe, thus, "When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

M/S Giriraj Enterprises, Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

decision is reproduced as under:- 3 52 When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's eaming

M/S Sargam Retails Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1496/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

decision is reproduced as under:- 52 When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

allow for a deduction." xx xx 52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

M/S Varsha Construction, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 5/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Varsha Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Second Floor-25, 26, Millenium Plaza, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Raipur-492 001, Chhattisgarh Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G.. Pan: Aaefv 8399 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Shree Shivam Attires Pvt. Ltd., Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 111/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 111/Rpr/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Yash Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Zahir Kasam Memon, Mumbai vs. Addl-JCIT (A)-2, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 914/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Murtaza Quresh Ghadiali- CA &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh-
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

When the provision of section 43B was first introduced into the statute, it was only concerned of the employees contribution having reference to section 34(1)(iv) of the Act. At that point of time, the question of Zahir Kasam Memon; A. Y.2019-20 employees contribution being considered as a part

Guardian India Operations Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT 1, Chennai

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

ITA 842/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik ShahFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, IRS,CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

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)

reproduced below for ready reference: "52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Indore

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

ITA 258/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Indiyaa Distribution Dy. Cit, Network Llp, 1(1), 11D, Sampat Farm, Indore. Opp.Agrawal Public बनाम/ School, Vs. Bicholi Mardana Road, Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aarfg1302N Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

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

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Vpssr Facilities, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3711/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Cit(A) When Discussed The Same By Applying The Judgment Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit-1, In Civil Appeal No.2833 Of 2016 & Ors.

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 37(1)

fact the other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employers contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employees contribution being considered as part of the employers eaming. On the application

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ITO-2(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. Addl. CIT-Range-3, Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ACIT-3(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Barbate Automotive (India) Private Ltd, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 168/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 312Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438Section 43B

empolyer contribution. The Hon'ble court observed, "When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Simbhaoli Sugars Limited, Hapur vs. ACIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Bulandshahr

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2104/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The "Due Date" For Furnishing The Return Of Income Under I. Tax Act.

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

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning