← 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)

S.S.Flexi Pack Private Limited, Raipur vs. ACIT-Circle-1(1), Raipur

ITA 97/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.97/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 S.S. Flexi Pack Private Limited Near Barkha Hotel, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aahcs3562K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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

M/S Gulabchand & Co, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1922/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash (Sr
Section 143(1)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

Ramacivil India Construction, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle, 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2162/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Ms. Beenu, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr. DR
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

Rishabh Metals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CPC, DCIT -Cir 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerishabh Metals & Chemicals V. Dcit-Circle -1(3)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 4Th Floor, Eross Theatre Bldg Mumbai - 400020 Jt Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr2214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)

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

Sharekhan Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

ITA 182/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Mundra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40A(7)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 6 M/s. Sharekhan Ltd. point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer

Sterling Motors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(3), Mumbai

ITA 1/MUM/2022[2018-196]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-196

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rayan Saldhana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)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

Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shreekala Pardeshi, Sr.DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

PF/ESIC is reproduced herein 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

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd., Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 24/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

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

The Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 16/BIL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

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

Gayatri Construction, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh

ITA 9/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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

Gayatri Construction, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh

ITA 8/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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

Mutyala Mohan, Bhilai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai

ITA 76/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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

Panchsheel Engineering Works, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

ITA 7/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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

Panchsheel Engineering Works, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

ITA 6/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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 Sumeet Synfab (India) Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 59/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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 Alankar Steels Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Begaluru

ITA 58/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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 Ashok Kumar Yadav, Korba vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 52/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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 Neelkantham Systems Pvt. Ltd, Korba vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi

ITA 51/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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 Rajendra Engineering Enterprises, Korba vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 50/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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 Rajendra Engineering Enterprises, Korba vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 49/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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