← 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)

Myumghwa Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2660/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Abhishek, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilayaraja, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

Tncp LLP., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Coimbatore

ITA 2603/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, 126, Kg House, Arts College Road, Coimbatore - 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.Τ. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: आदेश /Order : 20.11.2025 : 11.02.2026 These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Filed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)') For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Both Dated 09.07.2025 Against The Assessment Orders Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, U/S.143 (3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act') Dated 20.09.2021 & The Penalty Order Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, U/S.270A Of The Act Dated 15.01.2022 Respectively. :-2-:

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

from employee which were deposited by the assessee beyond the due date of making payment to such relevant funds within the meaning of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act as mentioned in point No.20(b) of Tax Audit Report. 7. The assessee responded

Tncd LLP., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2602/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, Ito, 126, Kg House, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

from employee which were deposited by the assessee beyond the due date of making payment to such relevant funds within the meaning of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act as mentioned in point No.20(b) of Tax Audit Report. 7. The assessee responded

Ces Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 638/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.638/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ces Limited, The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad – 500 032. Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aadcs4564P (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वधिध/Assessee By : Ca P Murali Mohan Rao िधजस् व द्वधिध/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधिीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणध की तधिीख/Pronouncement: 06.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

payment were made within the time limits prescribed in the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in making the additions not considering section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B of the Act, the expenditure is allowable if paid within due date of filing of return

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 6(1)(1), Maharashtra

ITA 6703/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6663/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. Ita No. 6701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. Ita No. 6702/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. Ita No. 6703/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aditya Birla Sun Life Dcitcircle-6(1)(1), Amc Limited, Room No. 502, 5Th 17Th Floor, One World Vs. Floor, Aayakar Centre Tower-1, Jupiter Bhavan, M. K. Mill Compount, 841, Road, Churchgate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb6134D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi, Shri Shrey Agrawal & Shri Aadish Jain, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees’ contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source ... income 6. In A.Y. 2017–18, the Assessing Officer disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 82,10,149/- under section 36(1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs. 92,31,072/-, disallowed interest on delayed payment

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 6(1)(1), Maharashtra

ITA 6702/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2022-23
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees' contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source ... income 6. In A.Y. 2017-18, the Assessing Officer disallowed employees' contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 82,10,149/- under section 36(1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs. 92,31,072/-, disallowed interest on delayed payment

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 6 (1)(1), Maharashtra

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA 6701/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees' contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source ... income 6. In A.Y. 2017–18, the Assessing Officer disallowed employees' contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 82,10,149/- under section 36(1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs. 92,31,072/-, disallowed interest on delayed payment

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Maharashtra

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA 6663/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees' contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source ... Assessing Officer disallowed employees' contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 82,10,149/- under section 36(1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs. 92,31,072/-, disallowed interest on delayed payment of tax deducted at source amounting

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmebabad vs. Techno Industries, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 660/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaltechno Industries, Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Plot No. 613, Phase Iv, Income-Tax, Gidc, Vatva, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382 245 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aacft 1503 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)” For Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(1) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 1,03,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Various Lenders U/S. 68 Of It Act, Despite The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Corroborative Evidences Identity Genuineness/Creditworthiness Of The Lenders During Assessment Establish The Proceedings. (2) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Admitting The Additional Evidences During Appellate Proceedings, Without Giving The Opportunity To The Ao As Required By Rule 46A.. (3) The Ld. Cita) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,66,037/- Made By Ao On Account Of Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans Paid To Lenders, Despite The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Dcit Vs. Techno Industries Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2–

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

Contribution of Employees Provident Fund u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of IT Act, despite the fact that Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) is clarificatory in nature and hence it is applicable to A.Y. 2017-18.” 3. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business ... wherein it has been categorically held that employees’ contribution to PF/ESI is governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act and is allowable as deduction DCIT Vs. Techno Industries Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 5– only if the same is deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant

Mark Engineers (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5757/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2018-19 Mark Engineers (India) Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ci/1302, Hyde Park, Plot 8-10, Vs. Circle-14(1)(1), Sector 35/G, Kharghar, Aayakar Bhavan, Navi Mumbai-410210. M.K. Road, Pan : Aaacm4258R Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri B. Shankar For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Sustaining The Levy Of Penalty U/S.270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri B. ShankarFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA

Alaknanda Associates, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(4), Meerut

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

ITA 5452/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2018-19 Ms. Alaknanda Associates, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 00, Shivam Complex, Ward-1(1)(4), Nateshpuram, Kanker-Khera, Meerut Meerut - 250001 Pan No. Aaofm3000C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Kota Trucks P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 14(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2050/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Kota Trucks P. Ltd. Vs. Acit Bg-223, Sanjay Gandhi Circle -14(2) Transport Nagar, Gt New Delhi Karnal Road, New Delhi- 110042 Pan No.Aadck3550H Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Pratap Gupta, Ca (Virtual) Respondent Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

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 ... Commissioner of Income Tax-11 judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court, settling the issue with regard to claim of deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961, wherein, it was held that to claim deduction under the aforesaid provision, employees' contribution should be deposited

O.K. Auto Components Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

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

ITA 3584/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

date. 18. As a fallout and consequence of above-stated discussion, the prima facie disallowance of impugned contribution towards ESI and EPF under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order

Nagaur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Nagaur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nagaur

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

ITA 882/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenagaur Urban Coop Bank Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 Limited Nagaur - 341001 Head Office Bal Samand, Nagaur - 341001 Pan No. Aaaan 7788 B Assessee By None (Adjournment Application) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Nfac/Cit Appeal”] Dated 27.09.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2022-23 Challenging Therein Disallowance Of Rs. 6,51,147/- By Cpc Invoking Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act.

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

perusal of record, we find that the disallowance of relief payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI in terms of Section 36(1)(va) is incorrect claimed as per the information furnished in the return of income. 5. Presently the issue of employees contribution ... Apex Courts in the case of “Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra)” disallowance of Rs. 6,51,147 u/s 154 read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act is rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the impugned order passed

Avalon Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle 3(2), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8994/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara**

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

## **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI** ## **BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER** ## **ITA No.8994/Del/2025

Fujiyama Power Systems, Parwanoo vs. ITO Parwanoo, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the penalty of Rs

ITA 977/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 68

Addition of Rs. 35,62,089/- on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va); (iv) Addition of Rs. 4,79,88,545/- on account of mismatch of income as per Form 26AS

Sri Rama Agri Genetics (India) Private Limited, Kurnool vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 1179/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 68

making additions of Rs. 8,77,278/- towards disallowance of interest on TDS and further disallowance of EPF & ESI under Section 36(1)(va) for Rs. 3,66,095/-, addition towards disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) for Rs. 11,08,678/-, disallowance of expenses claimed

M/S. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4076/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), Plot No.6, 4Th Floor, Sector 44, New Delhi. Gurugram – 122 003 (Haryana). (Pan : Aakcs3608R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2026 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit (A)”, For Short] Dated 17.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issues Involved In The Present Appeal Are Squarely Covered By Various Decisions & He Heavily Relied Upon The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench In The Case Of Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit (2025) 174

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

having been incurred are as follows: (a) Ground no. 1; Addition of Rs. 16,18,775/- made u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). 10 Ground nos. 2 to 5; Addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- u/s 68 of the act for credit in the name

Ravirajsinh Kishorsinh Jadeja, Rajkot vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

In the result, grounds of Appeal raised by the appellant are hereby Dismissed

ITA 48/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 48/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Ravirajsinh Kishorsinh Jadeja Vs. Adit Cpc 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 312 Silver Chambers, Tagore Road, Rajkot – 630002 (Gujrat) 48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, House Rd, Uttarahali Hobli, Karnataka - 560100 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahjpj0961H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27 / 11 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 / 01 /2026

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

ITA No. 48/Rjt/2022 Ravirajsinh Kishorsinh Jadeja IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Bmw Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2587/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Ms. Archana Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM