“Section 36(1)(va)”

Satya Pratap Singh Kunwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad, Haryana

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. For the proposed ... merit in such plea that the belated deposit of employees contributions to PF/ESIC governed under Section 36(1)(va) is also simultaneously amenable to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of the provision, Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure which is not in the nature

Ravinder Kumar Jha, Ghaziabad vs. The Accessing Officer, Ward- 2(2)(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Ravinder Kumar Jha, Vs. The Assessing Officer, 1039, Near Old Magnum Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad Paper Mill Karkar, Jhandapur, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Up, 201010, India Pan: Aippj0007P Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed ... virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character

Rajesh Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

appeals, who upheld the above disallowances. 5. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative ('AR') of the assessee submitted that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, in respect of employees' contribution to the PF and ESI, could not be the subject matter of any addition while ... liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed

Rajesh Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

appeals, who upheld the above disallowances. 5. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (‘AR') of the assessee submitted that the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, in respect of employees' contribution to the PF and ESI, could not be the subject matter of any addition while ... liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed

Auraine Botanicals Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanauraine Botanicals Private Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.22, Sector 18, Gurgaon. Electronic City, Palam Road, Gurgaon – 122 016 (Haryana). (Pan : Aamca8139P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Jain, Ca Ms. Nisha Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2025 Date Of Order : 22.08.2025 O R D E R

computing the interest liability u/s 234B on the addition made in the assessment order under section 68 and disallowing the amount under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5 11. The learned AO has erred in law and facts by making an addition of INR 5,08,854/- under ... section 36(1)(va) since the delay in payment of 'employee's part of contribution' was only for INR 2,44,623/- and the same is disallowable as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, learned AO has also disallowed INR 2,64,231/- ('the employer part