← 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)

Nexgen Infracon Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 261/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1) & The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)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

Prisma, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Moradabad

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

ITA 1197/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: N o n e
Section 139(1)Section 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 I.T.A. No. 1197/Del/2022 question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer

Navodia Times Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 192/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250oSection 36

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Korba vs. M/S. Dee Vee Project Ltd., Korba

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 69/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.69/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Korba (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Dee Vee Project Ltd. First Floor, Vikas Complex, P.H. Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Aaecd4619B ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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 Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangluru, Surat

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

ITA 139/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.139/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Motawada Steet, At & Po. Hazira, Bangluru. Tal: Choryasi, Surat – 394270. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amhpp6575A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deven Kapadia, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/01/2023 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43Section 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

Itek Packz, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 995/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

decision is 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. On the application

Mass Fab Technologies, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1079/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

decision is 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. On the application

M/S. Almech Facades Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC`, Delhi

ITA 1549/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Almech Facades Pvt. National Faceless Appeal Ltd., Centre (Nfac), 113B, Hub Town Solaris Delhi Building, Vs. N.S. Phadke Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069 Pan: Aanca3788P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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

Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd, Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Aayakar Bhavan, Building Ak Nayak Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaacg 1846 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Babulal Sharma, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Babulal Sharma, AR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

only employer’s was on the statute book, was only employer’s was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution ( contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, ). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being there was no question

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 765/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Supreme Court held 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

M/S. Automac Diesels, Huballi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 338/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

decision is 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. On the application

M/S Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Veto Switchgears Vs. Acit, 13(3)(2) & Cables Limited Room No. 229, 2 Nd Floor, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashtra Maharishi Karve Road, 400 058 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccv4990K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 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

Farida Shoes Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 849/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.849/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Farida Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner No. 151/4, Mount Poonamallee Road, Of Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai [Pan:Aaacf0496Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.10.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 28.11.2019 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.16,50,00,300/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

before the due date. [Para 37] 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

Sys Information Healthcare India Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1026/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

decision is as given below – “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

Dr Axion India Private Limited, Thiruvallur vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 301/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.301/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dr Axion India Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 7, Othappai Village, Uthukottai, Income Tax, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu 602 023. Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaccd5071D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. Abishek Murali, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 04.04.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 21.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.9,90,18,014/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete

For Appellant: Dr. Abishek Murali, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

before the due date. [Para 37] 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 Flamingo Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2392/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Flamingo Vs. National Faceless Pharmaceuticals Limited Assessment Centre, Delhi 7/1 Corporate Park, Sion Circle 14(1)(2) Trombay Road, Chembur Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400071 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacf4211B Assessee .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Ketki Desai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)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

M/S. Suresh Electricals, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Suresh Electricals, Vs. Dcit, Ward No.25, Cmc T. S. No.227, Tilak Cpc, Nagar, Khb Colony, Bengaluru. Bellary – 583 101. Pan : Abyfs 9751 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

therefore not lost totally. “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. On the application

Bhoruka Fabcons Private Limited, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 910/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Bhoruka Fabcons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.427E, Hebbal Industrial Area, Cpc, Mysuru – 570 016. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccb 9377 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bhargava S. N, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 28.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Calculated In The Prescribed Manner Under The Relevant Act. As Per Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. Bhargava S. N, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

therefore not lost totally. “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. On the application

M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Formerly M.S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 275/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.S.Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

before the due date. [Para 37] 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

Chase Security, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 796/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Chase Security, Vs. The Ito, No.16/A, 1St Floor, Millar Tank Bund Ward – 6(3)(1), Cpc, Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Aaefc 2412 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2021 By The Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

therefore not lost totally. “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. On the application