“Section 36(1)(va)”

Genesys International Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore, Bangaloe

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

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

employees' share of PF and ESIC contributions on account of payment made after the due date prescribed under the respective funds as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act. It is stated that the assessee had paid Rs.2,26,36,692/- towards employee's contributions to PF & ESIC after ... filing the return of income, therefore the said amount is to be allowed as deduction and should not be disallowed in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said intimation order, the assessee filed the appeal before Ld. CIT (A) who has dismissed

Arvind Chheda, Mumbai vs. DCIT 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No.6649/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2020

Zenith Dyeintermediates Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

Report (Form No.3CD), it is observed from Clause No. 20b "details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va)" that the assessee has paid Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund. As per provision of Income Tax Act, any sum received by the assessee

The Jackson Co Op Credit Society of the Employee of Western Railway Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - CPC, Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

prima facie adjustment on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution towards Provident Fund, by relying upon the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the I. T. Act, 1961, not appreciating that such deposit was made prior to the due date as per section 139(1) and that ... prima facie adjustment on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution towards Provident Fund, by relying upon the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the I. T. Act, 1961, not appreciating that the concerned deposit was made prior to the due date for filing return as per section

Mangaldeep Superstructures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, National E Assessment Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhrimangaldeep V/S. Ito, Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Delhi-110001 45 Heeramani Ratanbangur Nagar Goregaon West, Maharashtra-400104 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci771B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

added to the income. 6.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. As per the provisions of section 36(1)(va), the employees’ contributions to PF and ESI have to be deposited by the due date prescribed

Om Vinyls Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Solvay Specialities India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2) / Assessment Unit, NFAC, Mumbai

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

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. GIRISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

erred in making disallowance /addition of INR 1,00,31,282 [INR 89,92,702 under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and INR 10.38,580 presumably under Section 41 of the Act] in the impugned order by adopting loss of INR 96,67,71,539 as the starting ... 1,00,31,282 made in the impugned order. 6. Erroneous disallowance of employee contribution to provident fund/ESI/any other welfare fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act of INR 89,92,702 6.1 Without prejudice to the ground 5 above, on facts and circumstances of the case

Viiking Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Viiking Media & Entertainment Deputy Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai 604-605, 6Th Floor, Gateway Plaza, 604-605, 6Th Floor, Gateway Plaza, Vs. Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai – 400076. Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai – 400076. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj9884E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Aakash Kumar Respondent By : Shri. Ajay Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Ex Parte Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 52, Mumbai (‘Ld. Cit(A) For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2017-18. 2. It Is Observed That The Present Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 16 Days For Which The Accountant Of The Ld.Ar Appearing For The Assessee Has Filed Application Dated 06.02.2025 Along With An Affidavit For Condoning The Said Delay. Upon Perusal Of The Same, We Deem It Fit To Hold That The Assessee Had “Sufficient Cause” For The Said Delay M/S. Viiking Media & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Therefore We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay Caused By The Assessee In Filing The Present Appeal. Delay Condoned.

erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making a disallowance of Rs 6,60,141 under section 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employee's contribution to provident fund. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Assessee under Section 271AAB of the Act in respect of disallowance of INR.23,67,555/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act in respect of employee’s contribution to the Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance Corporation ... entitled to claim deduction for the same (even though the same were deposited after the expiry to statutory period) in terms of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. However, the aforesaid claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer 2 Assessment Year

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

levied on the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of disallowance of INR.1,57,53,261/-, made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the levy of the aforesaid penalty ... Perusal of the record shows that deduction of INR.1,57,53,261/- was claimed by the Assessee under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act in respect of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) by placing reliance upon the judgment

Kohinoor Televideo Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 5(2)(1) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

note that the case of assessee pertains to AY 2017-18. This is to further bring to your notice that the amendment to section 36 (1)(va) and section 43B of the Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. 3. This is further proved ... income u/s.139(1) of the Act, then same is allowable as 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. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

disallowing and CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESIC and LWF amounting to Rs.11,84,822/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2.0. CPC erred in making addition under section 41 of the Act and CIT (A) erred confirming the said addition