← All Phrases

“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)

Surana Motors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 846/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, particularly when there are judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court permitting such a deduction. 2. When these ... authorities below and has also made very erudite submissions to the effect that clear legislative intent in the insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), with effect from 1st April 2021, must mean that so far as the assessment years prior to the assessment years

Master Polishers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 845/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, particularly when there are judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court permitting such a deduction. 2. When these ... authorities below and has also made very erudite submissions to the effect that clear legislative intent in the insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), with effect from 1st April 2021, must mean that so far as the assessment years prior to the assessment years

Neev Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 57/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, D.R
Section 2(24)(X)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

late payment of Rs.6,68,547/- made by the assessee on account of PF & ESIC under section 2(24)(X) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing ... what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that since the amended provisions contained under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act are not applicable for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 as the amendment will be effective from

Fortive India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is partly allowed

ITA 443/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

cited by the Ld. Authorised Representative of the Appellant in proceedings before CIT(A). Further, even after the introduction of amendments to Section 36(1)(va)/43B of the Act by way of Finance Act, 2021, Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal had, vide order dated 15.06.2021, in the case

Nilesh V. Metha, Mumbai vs. DCIT 32(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1150/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, particularly when there are judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court permitting such a deduction. 2. When these ... authorities below and has also made very erudite submissions to the effect that clear legislative intent in the insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), with effect from 1st April 2021, must mean that so far as the assessment years prior to the assessment years

M/S Vaishali Pharma Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1122/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, particularly when there are judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court permitting such a deduction. 2. When these ... authorities below and has also made very erudite submissions to the effect that clear legislative intent in the insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), with effect from 1st April 2021, must mean that so far as the assessment years prior to the assessment years

M/S. Mazgaon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

1) of the Act, the Ld CIT(A) took the aid of the explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2021in Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which according to him was retrospective in operation and so is applicable for the year under consideration ... date as prescribed the respective Acts (PF/ESI Act). According to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the explanation inserted in Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is retrospectively applicable 3 A.Y. 2019-20 Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders for the year under consideration

Stg Refractory Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-400042 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Karnataka-560500

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1063/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, particularly when there are judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court permitting such a deduction. 2. When these ... authorities below and has also made very erudite submissions to the effect that clear legislative intent in the insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), with effect from 1st April 2021, must mean that so far as the assessment years prior to the assessment years

Chauhan Lifters, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1289/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1289/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) National Faceless Chauhan Lifters Appeal Centre (Nfac), 124-3, Bhaskar Niwas Road No. बिधम/ Delhi 4, Scheme No. 6, Sion East, Vs. Maharashtra-400 022 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aakfc2375E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By None : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 26.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2

For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various 15 I.T.A. No. 1289/Mum/2022 Chauhan Lifters funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression „due date‟ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that

M/S S. K. International, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1251/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1251/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit-17(1), M/S. S. K. International Kautilya Bhavan, Near S. K. House, 94-A, Aval Baug, बिधम/ Videsh Bhavan, Bandra D. S. P. Road, Dadar (E), Vs. Kurla, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 014 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aamfs2232C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By None : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.04.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2

For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... respect of contributions received from employees for various 15 I.T.A. No. 1251/Mum/2022 M/s. S. K. International funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression „due date‟ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that

Agaskar Civil & Garden Contractors, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1247/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1247/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) National Faceless Agaskar Civil & Garden Appeal Centre (Nfac), Contractors बिधम/ Delhi Plot No. A-249, Namdeo Smruti, Vs. Sector-19, Koparkhairanine, Navi Mumbai-400 709 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Abcfa6438K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 30.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... respect of contributions received from employees for various 15 I.T.A. No. 1247/Mum/2022 Agaskar Civil & Garden Contractors funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression „due date‟ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that

Pace Setters Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT CPC Bangalore & Cir 8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1216/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1216/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore & Pace Setters Business Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai Solutions Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ 1 Bori Bunglow, 49 S K Bole Vs. Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcp7717M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. Ar अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 23.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2018-19. 2

For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... respect of contributions received from employees for various 15 I.T.A. No. 1216/Mum/2022 Pace Setters Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression „due date‟ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that

Seven S Banking Management Consultancy Services (P) Ltd, Mumbai-400069 vs. Circle-11(2)(1), Mumbai-400020

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

ITA 1167/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1167/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Circle-11(2)(1), Seven S Banking Management Mumbai Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. बिधम/ Office No. 104, Eco Heights, Shree Nityanand Society, Vs. Swami Nityanand Marg, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaecs7701B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 26.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... contributions received from employees for various 15 I.T.A. No. 1167/Mum/2022 Seven S Banking Management Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression „due date‟ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that

M/S Aashis Products, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru, Banguluru

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

ITA 1131/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1131/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit, Centralized M/S. Aashis Products बिधम/ Processing Centre, Plot No. 23, Midc, Road No. 9, Vs. Bengaluru-560500 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400 093 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaafa1695H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 25.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2018-19. 2. The Ground Taken Before Us Is That, Ld. First Appellate Authority Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding Addition U/S 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... reported to be „due date‟ in column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression „due date‟ has been defined under Explanation (now 15 I.T.A. No. 1131/Mum/2022 M/s. Aashis Products Explanation 1

Qualiance International Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 2357/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2357/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Centralized Processing Qualiance International Pvt. Centre, Ltd. बिधम/ Bengaluru-560500 B-406, Knox Plaza, Mind Space, Vs. Next To Tangent Showroom, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 064 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacq1420B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 29.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... respect of contributions received from employees for various 15 I.T.A. No. 2357/Mum/2021 Qualiance International Pvt. Ltd. funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression „due date‟ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that

M/S. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2102/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2102 & 2103/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Dcit Cir-3(2)(1), M/S Lavino Kapur Cottons Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Maharshi Karve Road, 121/122, Mittal Chambers, Vs. Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacl0824C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Surinder Mehra, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 10.09.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mehra, LdFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 6. It is admitted ... reported to be „due date‟ in column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression „due date‟ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that

M/S Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 46/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent ... filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act, alters the position of law adversely to the assessee. Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective

Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 45/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent ... filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act, alters the position of law adversely to the assessee. Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Total Environment Building Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 40/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent ... filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act, alters the position of law adversely to the assessee. Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective

Dy.CIT 13(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sahakar Global Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 46/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

pertaining to assessment year 2018-19. 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is the deletion of addition made under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) to the tune of R.3,57,95,555/- being employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC deposited after the due date ... return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act at CPC, Bangalore. The impugned amount was disallowed under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the I.T.Act on the pretext that the employees contribution to Provident Fund & ESIC was paid beyond the due dates