← 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)

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

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

ITA 79/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2017-18

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

B.K.Khare & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 230/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhb.K. Khare & Co. Vs. Acit 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4Th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafb0265E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Hindustan Organics & Chemical Ltd. 366 ITR 1 be deleted. (2.1) The Learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the amendments to provisions of Section 36 (1) (va) & 43B made by the Finance Act, 2021 are merely clarificatory in nature & applicable with retrospective effect and hence, the learned AO was justified ... 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

B.K.Khare & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhb.K. Khare & Co. Vs. Acit 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4Th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafb0265E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Hindustan Organics & Chemical Ltd, 366 ITR 1 be deleted. (2.1) The Learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the amendments to provisions of Section 36 (1) (va) & 43B made by the Finance Act, 2021 are merely clarificatory in nature & applicable with retrospective effect and hence, the learned AO was justified ... 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

B.K.Khare & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhb.K. Khare & Co. Vs. Acit 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4Th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafb0265E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Hindustan Organics & Chemical Ltd. 366 ITR 1 be deleted. (2.1) The Learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the amendments to provisions of Section 36 (1) (va) & 43B made by the Finance Act, 2021 are merely clarificatory in nature & applicable with retrospective effect and hence, the learned AO was justified ... 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

Veritas Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2457/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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

Visa Consolidated Support Services (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2454/MUM/2021[2019-20AAACV009394F]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awashty & Shri Amarjit Singhvisa Consolidated Vs. Centralized Processing Support Services (India) Center, Bengaluru Private Limited Karnataka - 560500 1702, A Wing, The Capital, 17Th Floor, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacv9394F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Anish Thacker &For Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

relation to delayed remittance of employee's contribution towards provident fund based on section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In this regard, the learned CIT(A) has erred on the following: (a) Not considering the fact that the said ... 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

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

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

ITA 2008/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

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

Raman & Weil Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1946/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Surendra NijsureFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Medihal Krishnaiah Raghavendra, Kolar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 52/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh G., 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

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 320/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 319/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 318/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 317/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 316/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 315/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 230/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Sri Peddanna Suresh, Shivamoga vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 627/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, 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

Bloom Systems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2348/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

claim was incorrect claim u/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act as the amounts were paid beyond the due date as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act and therefore the prima facie adjustment under 143(1)(a) was justified. 2. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate ... 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

Aevitas Pharmagro Tech P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1675/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1675/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Aevitas Pharmagro Tech Private Limited, B2-210, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 072. Pan: Aaacp-6240-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Cpc) Bengaluru -560 500. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Milan Dattani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Jain सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Milan DattaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

DCIT disallowed assessee’s claim u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The CIT(A) further held that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 would be effective retrospectively. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee vehemently submitted that the CIT(A) failed ... contra Shri Mehul Jain representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been amended by the Finance Act,2021. In the amendment the phrase “ shall be deemed never to have been applied” has been

Megger India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2130/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR–CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Rs.4,27,424, on account of alleged delay in payment Megger India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.2130/Mum./2021 towards Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1 ... 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