“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)

M/S. Empower Activity Camps Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1624/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

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

income filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. A disallowance to the amount of Rs.66,885/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on delayed payment made to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund was made by the Assessing Officer. This disallowance was made ... Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) has been inserted to clarify that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply for the purpose of determining the due date. The Ld.CIT

Chandrahas Mundappa Rai, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, CPC Bangalore

ITA 1595/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, D.R

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

making 3 Mr. Chandrahas Mundappa Rai addition of Rs.16,48,759/- on account of disallowance of late payment of PF/ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved ... income. It is settled principle of law that amendment made in the relevant provisions by Finance Act, 2021 in the provisions contained under section 36(1)(va) of the Act by inserting explanation 2 as well as section 43B of the Act was held to be prospective as decided

Kamla Landmarc Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 1624/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

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

Sasmos Het Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 636/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Susan Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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 ... 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

Roopa Sampath Kumar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 624/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 Ms. Roopa Sampath Kumar, The Assistant No. 103, Blue Cross Director Of Income Chambers, Tax, Infantry Road, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 Vs. Bangalore. 001. Pan: Ablpk3199A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) — Nfac, Delhi, In So Far Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Delhi Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Employees' Contribution Towards Provident Fund & Employees' State Insurance Of Rs.5,17,229/- Without

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA

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

Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi erred in law and on facts in holding that the amendment brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature even though CBDT has clarified ... remitted within the due date as mentioned in the respective Acts. The CIT(A) also relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue

Suraj Kiran Fabrics, 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, 306401, Rajasthan vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 23(3)(6)

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1604/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesuraj Kiran Fabrics Vs. Jurisdictional Ao 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, Ward23(3)(6) Rajasthan-306401 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs1244A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Jodhpur, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

before the filling of Income Tax return due date as per section 139 (1) are allowable expenses and cannot be disallowed under section 36(1)(va). But the Ld. Assessing Officer (CPC) without appreciating the legal position and facts of the case made the above mentioned addition and the assessee ... 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 Bbr (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 92/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering that the amendment brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act are prospective in nature and CBDT has clarified in the Explanatory Memorandum ... case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that 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

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 81/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

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 1 April, 2021 and accordingly ... 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

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 639/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

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

NFAC, Delhi, was not correct in confirming the disallowance made the CPC, by taking a view that the amended amendments made to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act 202~ are retrospective in nature as the said amendment was specifically made applicable from 1st April ... debatable and hence appeal cannot be entertained from an order u/s 154 of the I.T.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. 6. Aggrieved, assessee has filed these appeals

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 638/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

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

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 637/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

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

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 39/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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

Ram Kumar Tomar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 34(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assesses is allowed

ITA 1730/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Ram Kumar Tomar, Vs. Ito, C-40, Shakti Nagar Extension, Ward-34(1), New Delhi D New Delhi Pan: Aadpt6457D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriAmitGoel, Ld. CAFor Respondent: ShriVipulKashyap

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

same. 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the disallowance/addition qua employee‟s contributions towards PF and ESI, referred the provisions of section 36(1)(va), 2(24)(x) and 43B of the Act and held that if any of the deposit is outside the due date mandated under ... statute then that amount shall never be allowed as deduction under section 36 (1) (va)even though it might have been deposited with a delay of just a one day. There is no provision in the Act under which this amount can be allowed as deduction in any year thereafter

M/S. Zion Hospitals and Research Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 448/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Zion Hospitals & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 9, “Le Villa”, Commissioner Of Kirti Layout, Income Tax, Kammanahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 084. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacz4369G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Loss Of Appellant In The Intimation U/S. 143[1] Of The Act, At Rs. 63,89,502/-As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 43B

learned CIT[A] / NFAC is not justified in holding that the amendment made by insertion of Explanation 2 to the provisions of section 36[1][va] of the Act and the insertion of Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01/04/2021 ... remitted within the due date as mentioned in the respective Acts. The CIT(A) also relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue

S N Balasubramaniya, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 60/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep C, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan., Addl.CIT-DR

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

Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the amendment 2 Sri.S.N.Balasubramaniya. brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature even though CBDT has clarified ... case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that 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

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 59/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Technocon Builders, The Deputy # 337, Sf 8, Commissioner Of Karuna Complex, Income Tax, Sampige Road, Circle - 2 (2)(1), Malleshwaram, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Aaift3196L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajagopal, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Without Jurisdiction, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

paid by the employer in the capacity of employer. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by applying section 36(1)(va) instead of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts ... addition made by the Ld. AO in his order by taking recourse to the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to the section 43B which takes effect from 1st April 2021 and is applicable to the AY 2021-22onwards

Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 58/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 57/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 40/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

jurisdictional High Court to confirm the disallowance despite there being contrary judgments of the jurisdictional High Court. (f) Holding that, the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B brought in by Finance Act, 2021 are retrospective, clarificatory and declaratory in nature. And erred in thus confirming the disallowance ... Coin Health 4 M/s.Karle Infrastructure Private Limited Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that 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

Suman Creation, Mumbai vs. ITO -22 (6) (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 & 2019-20 are allowed and addition made by CPC and confirmed by CIT (A) is directed to be deleted

ITA 1687/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin RomaniFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur

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

being payment made towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and Other Welfare Fund by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r. w. Section 2(24)(x) of the Act.” 2. Facts and grounds being identical we take appeal ... Gujarat State Road Corporation [(2014) 366 ITR 170] and PCIT v Suzlon Energy Ltd [(2020) 115 taxmann.com 340]. b. Amendment made to Section 36(1) (va) and Section 43B is clarificatory in nature hence such amendment has to be applied retrospectively. 6. During the year under consideration, the Appellant