“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)

Ashvira Industires LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT-23 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1523/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

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

without jurisdiction since the additions have been made on issue where two views are possible. The addition of INR 2,39,440/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been made without appreciating that the employee‟s contribution to PF and ESI was deposited before the due date ... filing return and was allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act in terms of the following decisions of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Hind Filter: 90 Taxmann.com 51. Further the Tribunal has in number

Thiruvalaya Venugopal, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 235/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Smt.Mrinalini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sr.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. It was further held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before ... income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. It was further held by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the I.T.Act is only prospective. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows:- 4 Sri.Thiruvalaya Venugopal. “5. We heard

Crimsonlogic India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 228/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

circumstances of the case, the CPC and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in disallowing the deduction claimed by the Appellant under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B(b) of the Act, with respect to the employees contribution to provident fund and employees state insurance which was credited after ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying on the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act, without appreciating that the same were prospective in nature being effective from 01 April, 2021 and accordingly

Rashi Eco Tourism Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 50/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, Addl. DIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) against the order of AO passed u/s.154. The CIT(Appeals) stated that the impugned disallowance u/s. section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B was made due to delayed remittance of the contribution to PF & ESI when the return was processed u/s. 143(1 ... date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act? (ii) Whether the amendment by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B are not clarificatory in nature and hence prospective? 9. These issues are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision

M/S. International Aerospace Manufacturing Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 618/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Shreeshkumar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri M S Nethrapal, Addl. DIT

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

remittance of the contribution to PF & ESI. 4. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) based on various judicial pronouncements held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by inserting explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill 2021 was only declaratory ... return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act? Page 3 of 6 (ii) Whether the amendment by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B are not clarificatory in nature and hence prospective? 7. These issues are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision

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

before the due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(1). Relief Claimed The appellant firm humbly submits that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B made in Finance Act 2021 are prospective and not applicable to assessment year under appeal. Therefore the addition confirmed ... vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under

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

assessee has assailed disallowance of Rs.9,39,141/- in respect of delay in payment of Provident Fund and Rs.17,751/- ESI contribution under section. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961[ in short ‘the Act’]. The ld.Authorized 2 Representative for the assessee submitted that the Central ... assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) assailing the disallowance. The CIT(A) referring to the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 disallowed assessee’s claim u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee

Global Waste Management Cell P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

ITA 139/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B Irani, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

passed on 18th December, 2018, by Central Processing Centre, Bangalore disallowing the employees contribution of Rs.2,94,92,315/- under section 36 (1) (va) of the Act due to late remittance. The assessee preferred before the National Faceless Centre, wherein the above disallowance was confirmed. The learned CIT(A) referred ... these three appeals is whether the Central Processing Centre, Bangalore can disallow the late payment of employees contribution to various funds under section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. This issue has recently been decided by the co-ordinate Bench in case of Kalpesh Synthetics

Global Waste Management Cell P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tas Department, Bengaluru

ITA 138/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B Irani, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

M/S. Global Waste Management Cell P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Center, Bengaluru

ITA 137/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B Irani, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

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

income u/s 139(1) of the Act, is allowable as a deduction. We note that by Finance Act, 2021, the provision of Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B has been amended to this extend by inserting the Explanation 2 whereby it was clarified that the provision ... have been applied for the purpose of determining the “due” date under this clause. For ready reference, we produce the Explanation-2 to Section 36(1)(va) as under: "Section 36(1)(va) Explnation-2-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section

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

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

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

Geetee Travels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1778/MUM/2021[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm The Commissioner Of Income Geetee Travels Private Limited Tax (Appeals) Shop No.1, Satellite Bldg, Opp National Faceless Appeal Mistry, Complex Om Nagar, Vs. Centre, Andheri, Mumbai-400 099 Delhi (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccg7462R Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

time of Rs. 792,353/- on the plea that contribution to PF & ESIC are solely and exclusively governed by the provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act without any reference to Section 438 of the Act. Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances ... Learned Centralized Processing Centre, Income Tax Department to the tune of Rs. 7,92,353/- by relying on Explanation 2 to Section 36(1) (va) of the Act introduced by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f 01.04.2021 wherein it is stated that "Explanation 2.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby

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)

return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. It was further held by the ITAT that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is not clarificatory. The relevant finding of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company ... 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 Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent

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

Haldiram Foods International Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst., Director, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 2059/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Haldiram Foods Asst. Director, Cpc International Pvt. Ltd., Centralised Processing A-204, Shyamkamal, Vs. Center, Agarwal Market, Income Tax Department, Mumbai – 400 0547 Bengaluru- 560500 Pan: Aaach3628L Karnataka (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Hitesh P. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Chintamani V. Dingankar, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chintamani V. Dingankar, D.R

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

year under consideration, after due date prescribed under the PF/ESIC Act and thereby made the addition of Rs.1,60,02,116/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. 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. 2018-19 as the amendment will be effective from

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)

income u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act. It was further held by the ITAT that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is not clarificatory. The relevant finding of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DCIT ... 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 Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent