← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(va)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)2,467 judgments

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1821/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Bhardwaj Sheshadri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

further observed that a sum of ₹3,12,232/- relating to delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to welfare funds was rightly disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The assessee had admitted the disallowance but contended that the same should be considered while computing deduction under section

NAZIM RIAZUDDIN SAIYED,TURQUOISE NYATI EMPIRE KHARADI PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 4(4), PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE, PUNE

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

ITA 287/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Nazim Riazuddin Saiyed, Vs. Assessing Officer, 301, Turquoise Nyati Empire, Ward-4(4), Pune Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Maharashtra Pan : Aqzps0676B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.287/PUN/2026

VIVIDODDESH PRATHAMIKA GRAMEENA KRUSHI SAHAKAR SANGHA NIYAMIT HIRUR ,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2197/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Shambhu Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd (supra) is misplaced. The said decision was rendered in the context of allowability of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and dealt with the requirement of strict compliance with the due dates prescribed under the respective statutes. The issue involved

RASNA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 926/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: The Addl. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Addition Made By The Ao, Thereby Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 38

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil

ACIT22(1), MUMBAI vs. UNIQUE BANGLES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 7427/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit-22(1) Unique Bangles, 322, Piramal 232/234, Shah & Chambers, Mumbai – Vs. Nahar Industrial 400 013. Estate, S. J. Mar, Dhanraj Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400019 Pan/Gir No. Aadfu8125A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Chhajed & Shri Sunil Vankawala, Ld. Ars Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

under section 68 on account of unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits – Rs. 47,13,589/-. 4 Unique Bangles 3. Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to provident fund – Rs. 2,480/-. 5. While making the disallowance under section ... justified and accordingly deleted the addition of Rs. 47,13,589/-. 6 Unique Bangles 9. However, with regard to the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs. 2,480/-, the CIT(A) recorded that no specific submission was made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings

DENSO INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6688/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6688/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Denso International India Private Ld. Dcit, Limited, Vs. Circle 7(1), B-1/D-4, Ground Floor,Mohan C.R. Building, Delhi. Cooperative Estate,Delhi. Pan No.Aabcd1103D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

submission that the Checkmate Services case (supra) drew a clear distinction between the provisions of section 43B of the Act and section 36(1)(va) of the Act. It was argued by 2 the Ld. AR that the Checkmate Services case (supra) pertained to the employees’ contribution ... such contribution before the due date of filing the return of income,as against this the contribution of the employees is governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. On this the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly directed that such contributions should be deposited in the Government Account

M/S. KAMAKSHI JUTE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 3151/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 770/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

provident fund. Thus, the above payment of Rs. 1,34,776/- which is not in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such ... filed u/s 139 of the Act originally. The amount of Rs. 1,34,776 has been disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 769/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

provident fund. Thus, the above payment of Rs. 1,34,776/- which is not in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such ... filed u/s 139 of the Act originally. The amount of Rs. 1,34,776 has been disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 768/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

provident fund. Thus, the above payment of Rs. 1,34,776/- which is not in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such ... filed u/s 139 of the Act originally. The amount of Rs. 1,34,776 has been disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 767/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

provident fund. Thus, the above payment of Rs. 1,34,776/- which is not in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such ... filed u/s 139 of the Act originally. The amount of Rs. 1,34,776 has been disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 766/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

provident fund. Thus, the above payment of Rs. 1,34,776/- which is not in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such ... filed u/s 139 of the Act originally. The amount of Rs. 1,34,776 has been disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. OASYS CYBERMATICS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3102/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Srinivasan, CIT for Mr. Bipin C. N., CITFor Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kannan &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 5(3)

remitted employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI beyond the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Relying upon the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.0.52 crore. Accordingly, reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act was completed on 31.03.2022 incorporating

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

ITA 3101/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

account of payment made to 35,51,32,556 fictitious transporters 3 Interest on statutory dues 1,30,000 4 Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) - 129,340 delayed remittance of employees contribution to PF & ESI Total 40,66,15,996 5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

ITA 3100/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

account of payment made to 35,51,32,556 fictitious transporters 3 Interest on statutory dues 1,30,000 4 Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) - 129,340 delayed remittance of employees contribution to PF & ESI Total 40,66,15,996 5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT

ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SOL ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6017/MUM/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2013-14 Acit, Circle – 3(2)(1) Vs. Sol Entertainment Pvt Ltd Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 903-904, 9Th Floor, Aayakar Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No.Aapcs6369A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 4

assessee. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made the following adjustments: i. Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC amounting to Rs. 12,18,673/- ii. Disallowance of proportionate business loss

ZAHEER AHMED SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CC-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 410/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO erred in making the addition without considering section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act, that such an expenditure is allowable if the same is, paid within 3 Zaheer Ahmed Syed due date of filing return of income ... wherein it has been clearly held that, belated payment of employees' contribution to welfare funds is not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A similar view has been upheld by the jurisdictional High Court of Telangana

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , KOLKATA vs. P N MEMORIAL NEURO CENTRE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2228/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH AT KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar

COMER INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1228/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 234CSection 263Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

WESTERN CONGLOMERATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(4),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2646/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

manufacturing tea, filed its return of income for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a disallowance under section 36(1)(va) for delayed payment of employee's contribution to Provident Fund. The appeals were filed beyond the limitation period.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay ... exempt, while 40% is taxable. Therefore, the disallowance for delayed PF payment should be restricted to 40% of the taxable income.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["36(1)(va)", "143(1)"], "issues": "Whether the disallowance for delayed PF payment should be restricted to the taxable portion of income as per Rule

Showing 1–20 of 2,467 · Page 1 of 124

...