“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)

Mrm Solutions, Shivamogga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 707/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor 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 ... shall be no order as to costs." MRM Solutions, Shivamogga Page 5 of 7 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

Sri Gajanana Enterprises, Shivamogga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 706/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor 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

R.P..Synthetics, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2264/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sanjay Gargr.P. Synthetics The Dcit Plot No.. R.67, Midc Cpc, Bangalore, Thane Belapur Road, Vs. Karnataka-560500 Navi Mumbai-400 701 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaefr7566C Assessee By : Shri Vinay Devi, Ar Revenue By : Shri. Anil Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Devi, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Gupta, DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A), National Faceless centre erred in disallowing P.F. section 36(1)(va) and and ESIC payments aggregating to Rs. 1,95,721 on the ground that amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to section ... been deposited beyond the due date applicable under the provision of ESI Act, 1948 and EPF Act by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance, the assessee filed the appeal before the national Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi where

Dicitex Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1715/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) & Could Be Allowed As Deduction.

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

disallowance of Rs 4,24,634 on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees' contribution for the provident fund, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, particularly 3 ITA No.1715 & 1716/Mum.2021 M/s. Dicitex Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., when there are judgments ... delayed payment in column 20(b) were delayed payments of contributions received from the employees for various funds, as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis the respective statute, but not vis-à-vis the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judicial precedents in support

Triton Maritime Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT -5(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1628/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2019-20

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

orders of the lower authorities. This Tribunal has been consistently holding that the amendment 4 M/s. Triton Maritime Pvt. Ltd., brought in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is applicable only from A.Y.2021-22 and onwards and cannot be applicable for earlier year. In view

Shankar Packgings Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 316/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Shankar Packagings Vs. National Faceless Appeal Limited , 303, Turf Centre, Delhi Estate, Shakti Mills New Delhi Lane,Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West) Mumbai – 400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8076P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Apurva R. Shah Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In Not Adjudicating The Appellant'S Claim On Merits Of The Issue But Merely Holding That The Appellant Ought To Have Filed An Appeal Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) & Not Against The Order Rejecting The Proposal U/S. 154. 2. In Not Appreciating That By The Said Action The Nfac Has Therefore Approved An Incorrect Act Done Whilst Processing The Return Filed.

For Appellant: Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

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

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 ... Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the ITA No. 316/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 3 M/s Shankar Packagings Limited Vs. NFAC

M/S. Aashis Products, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2171/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aashis Products V. Adit, Cpc Plot No. 23, Midc, Road No.9 Bangaluru-560500 Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Karnataka Pan: Aaafa1695H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Dalal Department By : Shri Anil Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Samir DalalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta

Section 36(1)(va)Section 3BSection 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 2031/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

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

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 ... Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 2030/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

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

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 ... Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution

Bell Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 655/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sanketh Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that 2 M/s.Bell Teleservices India Private Limited. these legislative amendments incorporated in section 36(1)(va) and 43B by Finance Act, 2021, are prospective in application w.e.f. April 1, 2021. 6. Such other grounds as may be urged at the time ... 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

Espresso Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 2048/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.2048/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) Espresso Financial Services Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Sharekhan Comtrade Private Limited) 10Th Floor, Beta Building, Ithink Techno Park,Off Jvlr, Kanjurmarg(East), Mumbai 400 042. Pan: Aawcs-2915-D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 500 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Mundra ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil A. Gupta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MundraFor Respondent: Shri Anil A. Gupta

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

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एस एम सी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. "रफौर

M/S. Almech Facades Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC`, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2087/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

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

case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,50,867/- under section 36 (1)(va) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (Act) on payments made to employee's provident fund before the due date of filing of return ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in making a disallowance of Rs.2,50,867/- under section 36 (1)(va) Act without appreciating that the same is allowable as per the ratio of the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court which are binding

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2056/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

account of amounts debited to the profit and loss account, to the extent disallowable under section 36(1)(va) of the act for Contributions received from Employees for ESIC and Provident fund.” 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that payment of employee’s contribution ... income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, then same is allowable deduction. Ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and not retrospective

Vinayak Hirji Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2012/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(Va)Section 36(1)(va)

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

M/S. Aashia Products, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2007/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

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

income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, then same is allowable deduction. Ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and not retrospective ... 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

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1986/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in holding that the explanations 2 and 5 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature and applicable to the present assessment year. Thus, the said observation may be reversed ... income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, then same is allowable deduction. Ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and not retrospective

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst/Dy/ Dir of Income Tax CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Paper Recycle, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1960/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri R.D. KhonaFor Respondent: Smt Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

employees contribution to PF/ESIC payment of Rs. 4,43,496/on the ground that payment was not made on time as per explanation below section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 2(24) (X) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering Clause of Finance Bill ... income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, then same is allowable deduction. Ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act by Finance Act, 3 ITA.NO. 1960/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2019-20) M/s. Paper Recycle 2021 is only prospective

Hipower Support Centre LLP, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 103/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Sushen Srivathsan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

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

contribution made towards ESI. 1. The learned AO and the First Appellate Authority has erred in applying the provisions of Section 36 1 (va) retrospectively to the relevant assessment year of 2017- 2018. 2. The High Court of Karnataka in Essae Teraoka v DCIT has held that the Assessee would ... 385/Bang/2021 has applied the dictum in Essae Teraoka v DC!T and further held that the amendment to the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36 (1) (va) and 43 B is not clarificatory and declaratory and it is effective only from the AY 2021 - 2022 onwards and has no application

Ramesh Narayan Shetty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

ITA 80/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The learned CIT (A) held that there is a clarificatory amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act and therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the CPC, Bangalore. 05. The learned ... whether if such an adjustment was to be permissible in the scheme of Section 143(1), whether 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