“Section 139(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(1)7,818 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(1)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court

1,842

citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

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. 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.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court

956

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Judgments citing Section 139(1)

DCIT Circle 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Ravi Dyeware Company P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)

1 M/s Ravi Dyeware Company P. Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M

United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. Indigenous Bureau of India, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 82/MUM/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 81 & 82 /Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/S Indigenous Bureau Vs. Cit(A) Of India (Formerly Known As Nfac, Delhi Investigation Bureau Of India) 164, 3Rd Floor, Zaveri Chambers, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafi1617H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N. B. GandhiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

PF/ESIC after due date specified in PF/ESIC Acts but before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed in section 139(1) of the act. We have perused the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals ... share of the employee's share of contribution is made on or before due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka

M/S. Indigenous Bureau of India, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 81/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: N. B. GandhiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Parekhplast India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 76/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.76/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Parekhplast India Limited, 101,Shiva Plaza ,Marol Industrial Co-Operative Limited, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aabcp-4523-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Nfac,Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Tejas Sodha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Tejas SodhaFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

made by the assessee after due date as specified under the relevant Acts but before due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act would 3 enable the assessee to claim deduction on such contributions under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. The contention

Padmavati Decor Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Begaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2258/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2258/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Padmavati Décor Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit-Cpc 606, 6Th Floor, Vileparle 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Vs. Shree Siddhivinay Sra Cha No.48/148/2, Shraddhananad Road, Vile Beratenaagrahara Begur, Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangaluru. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp5034F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mani Jain Revenue By: Shri Sanyam Joshi (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In National Faceless Appeal [Nfac], Delhi Dated 08.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanyam Joshi (Sr. AR)

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Peacefort Chem India Engg. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2127/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2127/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Peacefort Chem India Engg. बिधम/ Dcit-Cpc, Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 104, Sumerkendra, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp7161P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya Revenue By: Shri Jagdish Jangid (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 30.07.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Power Weave Software Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore, Bangslore

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

ITA 2126/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2126/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Power Weave Software बिधम/ Assistant Director Of Services Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc Vs. Power Weave House, Plot Bangalore. No.27, Eleven Building, Road No.11, Near Tunga Hotel, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9690D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh Revenue By: Shri Jagdish Jangid (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 29.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Oam Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Dir, CPC, Bengalurl

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2060/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2060/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Oam Industries (India) Pvt. बिधम/ Asst. Director, Cpc Ltd. Centralized Processing Vs. 601, Indira Apartment, Centre, Income Tax Tejpal Scheme Road, Vile Department, Bengaluru- Parle, East, Mumbai- 560500, Karnataka. 400057. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco8897J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hitesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Jagdish Jangid (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 09.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

M/S. Sycone Cpmc Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 260/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2018-19 M/S. Sycone Cpmc Private Limited, No.36, 20Th Main, 2Nd Block, Rajajinagar, Dcit, Cpc, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 010. Bengaluru. Pan No : Aaics 3458 H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 25/02/2022 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Bangalore & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.8,58,090/-, Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi, Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2018

R G Patil & Company, Haveri vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

date of search, i.e. 20/05/2014, the due date for filing return of the previous year had not expired, as specified under section 139(1) nor had the appellant filed its return of income. e. The appellant submits that the correct course of action for the revenue, would have been

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Mr.Nanjunda Renuka Aradhya, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 397/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 194C(2)Section 206ASection 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 238/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.238/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. बिधम/ Asst. Director Of Income Ltd. Tax, Cpc, Bangaluru- Vs. 101, Prabhat Centre Annex, 560500. Sector-1A, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca9143A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. S. Raheja (Adv.) Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In National Faceless Appeal [Nfac], Delhi Dated 27.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2019- 20. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Payment U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Appeal Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co-Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri H. S. Raheja (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (Sr. AR)

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Usa vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 863/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

section 234A of the Act of INR 3,344 even though Company has filed the return of income within due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. 9. The levy of interest under section 234B of the Act is consequential in nature. 3. The issues raised in this

ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Bhaskar Radheshyam Majumdar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1311/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer- Vs. Bhaskar Radheshyam 22(1)(6),104, 1St Floor, Majumdar, F-2, Harmony Piramal Chambers, Dr. E. Moses Road, Parel, Mumbai- 400012 Worli Naka, Mumbai - 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No:Amppm5466M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: C.T. MathewsFor Respondent: Raman Jokhakar &

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69Section 69A

ITA No.1311/Mum/2020 A.Y.2011-12 1 ITO-22(1)(6) Vs. Bhaskar Radheshyam Majumdar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH

Equipment Fabricators, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru

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

ITA 329/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Equipment Fabricators Asst. Director Of Income 136, Khajisonehalli Tax (Cpc) Kanamangala Post Post Box No. 1, Vs. Whitefiled-Hosakote Road Electronic City Post Office Bangalore 560067 Bengaluru 560010 Pan No : Aaafe4613P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 30/07/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.13,85,202/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2019

Ashwath Reddy Nagabhushan Reddy, Bangalore vs. Jurisdictional AO, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 134/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ITA No.134/Bang/2022 Ashwath Reddy Nagabhushan Reddy, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B

Sharan Fashions, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 133/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Nayak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ITA No.133/Bang/2022 Sharan Fashions, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN

Wave Mechanics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 689/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Wave Mechanics Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 7(1)92) V-3, 1 Main, I Phase Bengaluru Peenya Industrial Area Vs. Bengaluru 560058 Pan No : Aaacw3621J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Smt. Rashmi R., Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 11/10/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.16,21,394/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri. Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018