“Section 36(1)(va)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(va) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va)

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. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court

1,344

citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

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.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises

298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court

706

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court

631

citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

368 ITR 749 · 2014 · High Court

609

citing judgments

Deduction for employees' contributions to PF and ESIC is allowable under Section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1); similarly, delayed deposits of employers' contributions to ESIC and PF are also allowable.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn

41 Taxmann.com 100 · 2014 · High Court

540

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund or other welfare funds are deductible under section 36(1)(va) only if paid by the due date specified in the respective welfare fund enactments, and section 43B does not extend this period to the income tax return filing due date under section 139(1).

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT, Circle 8 Pune, Pune vs. Alfa Laval India Pvt Ltd, Pune

ITA 2270/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 92C

determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.247,08,48,210/- after making adjustments as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons: “1. Deemed International Transactions 2. Large value of international transactions 3. Transactions with

Pawan Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2509/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

erred on facts and in law, in making the disallowance on account of late deposit of ESI and PF under Section 36(1) (va) of the Act amounting to Rs. 34,35,960/- during the relevant Assessment Year. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) vide its order dated 20.03.2025 too has grossly ... instant case is that the CPC has made disallowance u/s 143(1) on account of late deposit of ESI and PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs. 34,35,960/- during the relevant Assessment Year. The issue of disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of employees

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails on the sole

ITA 1251/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Rao, AR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41(1)

Disallowance of Rs.31,46,177/- on account of late remittance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund was also made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2.3 CPC made aggregate additions of Rs.48,12,66,504/-, resulting in the assessment of positive income and determination of tax liability ... Fund is required to be deposited within the due dates prescribed under the relevant labour law and any delay would attract disallowance under section 36(1)(va). Accordingly, the addition of Rs.31,46,177/- was sustained. ITA No.1251/Ahd/2025 2.9 Inrespect of GST late fee of Rs.52

Pawan Infrahomes Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1134/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 68

Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) in relation to delayed employees’ contribution under section 36(1)(va), and the consistent legal position on additions under section 68 when the assessee fails to establish identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors

Neeraj Kumar Sinha, Jamshedpur vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 291/RAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayneeraj Kumar Sinha, I.T.O., Prop.-M/S Neeraj Engineering, Chota Ward-1(1), Vs. Ghamaria, Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-832108 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Bopps 2885 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154

referred to in the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals). 1.9 For that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 in Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by way of inserting Explanation 2 and Explanation 5 respectively are clarificatory in nature and, therefore, have retrospective ... applicability in sustaining the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees' contribution made to ESI and PF. 1.10 For that the amendments are prospective and are applicable for Assessment Years 2021-22. That the contributions to PF and ESI were remitted to Govt

DCIT, Bhilai vs. Jilla Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 1/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद

Nimbeshwar Gudadram Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (Previously Circle-3(3)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1436/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 36(1)Section 40

paid before the due date for filing return under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer held that as per section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x), employees’ contribution must be paid within the prescribed due date, and late payment cannot be allowed ... employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC, the Assessing Officer had disallowed Rs. 8,95,536/- for non-payment within the due date as prescribed under section 36(1)(va). The assessee argued that the payment was made before filing the return under section 139(1) and therefore allowable. CIT(Appeals), however, agreed

Vishal Furnishing Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4550/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vishal Furnishing Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Income 211, Shiv Shakti Industrial Complex, Tax, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400011. Pan/Gir No. Aaacr2138K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakkani Respondent By : Shri Vivek Perampurna (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1) The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Was Passed In Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice & Contrary To The Scheme Of Assessment & Hence The Assessment Order Was A Nullity & Deserves To Be Quashed. 2) The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao Disallowing Depreciation On Goodwill Of Rs 4,12,73,088/- (As Claimed In Accounts) Without Appreciating That Goodwill Had Arisen On Amalgamation & Was Eligible For Depreciation U/S 32 & Hence The Addition Of Rs 4,12,73,088/-May Be Deleted. Vishal Furnishing Limited

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakkaniFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT DR)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Surendra Devid Thokal, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1173/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1173/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Surendra Devid Thokal, V The Income Tax Officer, B14, Thokal Niwas, Chawni, S Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Aurangabad – 431001. Pan: Aehpt3043B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Smt. Sonall Sonkavde – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Noida Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 03.01.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 09.01.2020. 2. At The Outset Of Hearing, No One Attended On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Written Submission Or Adjournment Letter Was Filed.

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

DCIT Central Circle, 1(4), Kolkata vs. Jupiter International Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 852/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 852/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….…Appellant Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Jupiter International Limited,…………….…Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kolkata-700019, West Bengal [Pan:Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate & Shri K.K. Chhaparia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.N. Barnwal, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

ITA No. 852/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Jupiter International Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO-7(1) (Erstwhile ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2712/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1504/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B Before Dr. B.R.R. Kumar Kumar, , , , Vice Vice-Before Before Dr. B Dr. B Kumar Kumar Viceshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalcheckmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. 1115 To 1120, 73 East Avenue, Income-Tax, Sarabhai Campus, Near Genda Circle 1(1)(1), Circle, Vadodara-390023 Vadodara [Pan :Aaacc 8465 A] (Appellant Appellant Appellant) Appellant .. (Respondent Respondent Respondent) Respondent Appellant By : Appellant By : Ms. Kinjal V. Shah, Ar Appellant By : Appellant By : Respondent By: Respondent By Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr Respondent By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025

For Appellant: Appellant byFor Respondent: Respondent by Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 26ASection 36(1)(va)

Ground No.1 & 2 Disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to PF/ESI Disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to PF/ESI 4. The Assessing Officer made a disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act for delay in deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI beyond the due date as prescribed under

Indocare Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. Ward 12(1), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4750/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19

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

accordingly proceeded ex parte. 2. The Revenue vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly invoked section 36(1)(va) isallowance to make addition of Rs. 14,76,834/- on account of assessee’s failure in not having deposited the ESI/PFin the prescribed

Siyaram City Cabs Ltd., Jaipur vs. Itd Ward 6(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 661/JPR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40

erred in confirming the action of Id. AO, in making addition of Rs.2,07,643/- under section 36(1)(va) to the income of the assessee. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted ... under following heads. 6 SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR Under Section 40(a)(ia) Rs.6,61,088/- Under Section 36(1)(va) Rs.2,07,643/- Under Section 37 Rs. 52,100/- 3.2 In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

Linen Design Company Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

ITA 3358/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwallinen Design Company Acit/Dcit, Private Limited, Circle-13(1), Flat No.701, Tower-Ii, Vs. Delhi. Sohna Road, Vipul Greens, Sector-48, Gurgaon (Gurugram)-122018. Pan-Aabcl7123P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Department By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.03.2025 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/154/2024-25/1075116153(1) Passed U/S 154 R.W.S250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 06.01.2020 For The Captioned Linen Design Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Year Wherein Disallowance Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution Towards The Esi/Epf Of Rs.20,17,444/- Was Made.

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

disallowance of Rs.20,17,444/- made by the AO(CPC) on account of late deposit of ESI and PF invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the above said disallowance has been confirmed rejecting the submissions and explanations made by the assessee

Rishi Parkash, Sonipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Sonipat

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3230/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

claims for deduction of delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards Employees State Insurance and Provident Fund of Rs.28,21,065/- under Section 36 (1) (va) of the Act of 1961 were disallowed, inasmuch as, on the said date, the issue with regard to delayed deposit of contribution with ... supra). In the said judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court noticed a division of opinion on the issue of interpretation under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961, with the High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi favouring the interpretation beneficial to the assessees

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 644/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

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

contribution with employer’s contribution and administrative charges. It was submitted that under the law, only employees’ contribution falls within the mischief of section 36(1)(va), whereas employer’s contribution is separately governed by section 43B. It was emphasized that the assessee had in fact deposited the employer ... 971/Del/2025, order dated 22.08.2025, wherein the Tribunal, after an elaborate analysis of the provisions of section 143(1)(a), section 36(1)(va), and section 43B, concluded that disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI on the basis of delayed deposit is not a matter which falls within the limited compass