← 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)

Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

ITA 816/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

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

sole substantive ground canvassed in its instant former appeal ITA No. 816/Del/2025 seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 36(1)(va) ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.18,14,176/- in the CPC’s section 143(1) processing dated 21.08.2023 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion ... share of contribution towards Employees State Insurance and Provident Fund of Rs.28,21,065/- 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.816 & 817/Del/2025 under Section 36 (1) (va) of the Act of 1961 were disallowed, inasmuch as, on the said date, the issue with regard to delayed deposit of contribution with

Janta Land Promoters Private Limited, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Chandigarh, Mohali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 907/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 907/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम M/S Janta Land Promoters Pvt.Ltd. The Ito, Sco 39-42, Sector 82, Ward 6(1), Vs Mohali. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aabcj3450D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

grounds, however, its grievance revolves around two issues, namely, ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made with the aid of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act with regard to the, (a) Employees’ contribution not paid before the due date provided under PF & ESI acts

Shiv Pratap Singh Kunwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle 1(1)(1) Meerut, Range-14, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 85/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Shiv Pratap Singh Kunwar, Vs Jurisdictional Assessing 508, Begum Bagh, Meerut, Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Uttar Pradesh-250001 Range-14, Meerut, Pan-Afmpk3273Q Uttar Pradesh-250001 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Hemant Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10029654 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Security Agency. The Appellant Filed His Return Of Income On 17.08.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 46,84,309/- & The Same Was Assessed U/S 143(1) On 11-12-2020 At The Income Of Rs.87,33,921/- Wherein The Cpc Made The Disallowance On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. 3. Against This Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before Ld.Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Vide Impugned Order Dated 29.11.2023 Thus, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

solitary issue in the present appeal is with respect to disallowance of employees contribution towards PF & ESI being paid delayed in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 8. Before us, the only contention of the assessee was that it had paid the employees contribution in accordance with

Ciena India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royciena India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(2) Limited, Co Kochhar & C.R. Building, Co. Law Office, Suite No. Delhi – 110002 1120-1121, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, New Friends Colony S.O Zakir Nagar So, South East, Delhi – 110025, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccc6131B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Yishu Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making the addition amounting to INR 94,400 under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employee contribution to labour welfare fund as the same was deposited within the statutory timelines provided under ... this ground of appeal become infructuous and hence, dismissed as infructuous. 7. Ground No. 6 relates to addition amounting to Rs.94,400/- under Section 36(1)(va) on account of employees contribution of the Labour Welfare Fund. It is the case of the assessee that the same was deposited within

Trident Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Ludhiana

The appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

allowable only if paid within the time prescribed under the respective statutes. The delay, however minimal, disentitles the assessee from claiming deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. We have also gone through the documents and the decision of 8. Coordinate Bench. The first document filed ... interpreted strictly. Any delay beyond the due date prescribed under the respective statutes would render such contribution ineligible for deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. It is equally true that the Hon’ble Apex Court has not carved out any 10. exception to the strict compliance mandated

Portescap India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6749/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT

M/S. Laxmi Organic Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4782/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate andFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Dileshwar Nath, New Delhi vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 68(5), Delhi, Range Code- 73, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

solitary issue in both the appeals is with respect to disallowance of employees contribution towards PF & ESI being paid delayed in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 8. Before us, the only contention of the assessee was that it had paid the employees contribution in accordance with

Dileshwar Nath, Delhi vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 68(5), Delhi, Range Code- 73

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 74/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

solitary issue in both the appeals is with respect to disallowance of employees contribution towards PF & ESI being paid delayed in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 8. Before us, the only contention of the assessee was that it had paid the employees contribution in accordance with

Salt Lake Service Station, Kolkata vs. DCIT, 49(1), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 431/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69A

extended due date notified by the EPF Authorities and hence could not have been considered within the sweep of Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... addition under Section 69A of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted. 3.1 Regarding the addition of Rs. 22,654/- made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, it would be desirable if the contention of the assessee is examined by the Ld. AO and it needs

Glitch Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2178/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

ensure that only legitimate taxes are collected and, therefore, should delete the additional disallowance of Rs.1,69,68,083. Without prejudice, disallowance of section 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs.9,24,959 on account of alleged late deposit of contribution made to Provident Fund 8. Without prejudice ... above, erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,24,959 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act towards contribution to Provident Fund made beyond the due date as per the respective Act, but deposited before the due date of filing the return as per the Act as per section

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur vs. Dc/Ac Circle-2, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 186/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.186/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank……….....…..…………………....Appellant Sharma Complex, Ramna Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, Bihar – 842002. [Pan: Aaaju0238J] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur.……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.47,24,77,982. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Manual Selection Criteria During The Financial Year 2017-18. Accordingly, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Were Issued & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response, The Assessee Appeared & Made Certain Submissions. However, The Assessing Officer Made The Following Additions/Disallowances: Rs.16,84,20,016: Provision For Npa.

Section 36(1)(va)

interest. Rs.5,08,291: Disallowed expenditure under the head "Food & Beverages" to staff. Rs.28,17,546: Disallowed contribution towards Provident Fund under section 36(1)(va) as not deposited before the due date. After the above disallowances, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Smt. Veena Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Assessing Officer (Special Range), Kanpur

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

ITA 195/LKW/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(va)

29/11/2021 at total income of Rs.4,59,32,212/- by making disallowance of Rs.24,22,448/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the basis of information contained in Form No.3CD. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who has dismissed

Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Delhi vs. AO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 3225/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3225/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac 341, Heritage Tower, Plot No. 1, Income Tax Officer, Sector-3, Dwarka, Ward-56(3), New Delhi-110078 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abppt7714C Assessee By: Sh. Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074785307(1) Dated 20.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Kumar TripathiFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

taxmann.com 1199 (Chattisgarh); has already settled the issue 2 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi in assessee’s favour and against the department that the above section 36(1)(va) disallowance of ESI/PF is a highly debatable issue to be rejected in section 143(1) “processing”, reading as under: “Sanjay K. Agrawal ... delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards Employees' State Insurance (ESI) and Employees Provident Fund (EPF) of Rs.28,21,065/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under

Santosh Chaturvedi, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh

ITA 697/IND/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Santosh Chaturvedi, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bhopal

ITA 693/IND/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Yardi Software India Private Limited, Pune vs. Assessing Officer, Jurisdiction Circle 12, Pune, Income Tax Department

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 549/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Yardi Software India Private Vs. Acit, Circle-12, Pune. Limited, Second Floor, Sigma House, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune City, Pune, Shivaji Housing Society S.O.- 411016. Pan : Aaccr8107N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Miss Chaitee LondheFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Court has dealt with various rulings and finally concluded the matter in favor of Revenue; the disallowance of Rs.38,80,972/-made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on account of delayed payment of Employees Contribution to PF/ESI u/s 143(1) is confirmed. The grounds of appeal ... auditor in the audit report of the assessee and the CPC accordingly disallowed the employees contribution to PF of ₹ 38,80,972/- under section 36(1)(va) of the IT act on account of the delay of one-day. 4.2. Learned AR submitted before us that when no penalty

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 6(3), Kolkata

ITA 1789/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 40a

I.T.A. Nos.: 1788, 1930 & 1789/KOL/2024 AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Nagreeka Foils Ltd. orders u/s 143(3)/263

Sh. Abhay Kumar Godha, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 546/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 546/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Abhay Kumar Godha 750, Achariyon Ka Rasta, Kishan Pole Bazar Jaipur - 303 003 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPG 4721K अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR स

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69A

deposited in the employee's account in the relevant fund before the date stipulated under the respective Acts. Thus, the deduction under Section 36(1) (va) of the IT Act can be allowed only if the employees' share in the relevant funds is deposited by the employer before ... date stipulated in respective Acts. As the appellant has failed to make compliance of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act, 1961 r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the I.T.Act, 1961, the AO was justified to disallow the deduction of Rs.2,05,049/- u/s 36(1) (va