← 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)

Sukiba Management Services Private Limited, Nashik Maharashtra vs. ACIT Circle 1 Nashik, Nashik Maharashtra

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

ITA 1790/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

Grounds of Appeal No. 01 to 02 :- These grounds of appeal are against to the addition of Rs.1,89,01,924/- under Section 36 (1)(va) of the IT Act. 4.1.1 It is admitted fact that employees' contribution towards PF/ESI was deposited beyond the due dates prescribed under the relevant ... appellant from its employees towards EPF and ESIC is the income in the hands of the appellant Further, as per provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, if such contribution is deposited in the relevant fund within due date prescribed under relevant Act, the same will be allowed

Axis Carriers and Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5846/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Axis Carriers & Logistics Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 803, B Kukreja Palace, Vallabh Baug Tax, 14(1)(1) Lane, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, 400075. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aadca9585A (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Rakesh Milwani Respondent By : Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘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) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, It Is Submitted That Once An Order Is Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter, For The Sake Of Brevity, Referred To As "The Act'), The Intimation Of Processing Of Return Of Income U/S 143(1) Of The Act Ceases To Be In Force & Cannot Be Acted Upon Having Merged With Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Therefore Additions Made While Processing Return Of Income Cease To Exist Once Order Is Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & The Additions Made To The Income U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Demands Raised Thereon Ought To Be Deleted. Axis Carriers & Logistics Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM Axis

Amjad Ahmadbhai Sheikh, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT-Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 565/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Laxman AndaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)

Employee's Contribution of PF and ESI were paid by the appellant after the "due date" as per the explanation below section 36(1) (va) of the IT Act, 1961, the same was added back to the total income of the appellant in the light of provision of Section

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

before the due date of filing of the returns under Section 139 thus no disallowance could be made u-s 43B or section 36(1)(va). No substantial question of law arises out of the impugned orders of the ITAT. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M-s State Bank ... prescribed time of relevant statues of PF/ESI. X X X (ii) This amount of Rs.24,14,531/- was legally disallowable in terms of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) However, while finalizing the assessment on 15/04/2021, no such disallowance is made

Diebold Nixdorf India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Diebold Systems Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6136/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

respective accounts within the stipulated period provided u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act read with the provisions contained in PF & ESIC Acts. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act very clearly provides that if employees contribution to PF & ESIC are not paid within the stipulated time period, such amount ... contribution to PF & ESIC cannot be allowed as deduction, the assessee cannot expect the very same relief under another provision. More so, when section 36(1)(va) of the Act (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2014-15) Diebold Nixdorf India Private Limited vs. CIT mandates that such contribution has to be treated

Diebold Nixdorf India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6135/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

respective accounts within the stipulated period provided u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act read with the provisions contained in PF & ESIC Acts. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act very clearly provides that if employees contribution to PF & ESIC are not paid within the stipulated time period, such amount ... contribution to PF & ESIC cannot be allowed as deduction, the assessee cannot expect the very same relief under another provision. More so, when section 36(1)(va) of the Act (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2014-15) Diebold Nixdorf India Private Limited vs. CIT mandates that such contribution has to be treated

M/S Varsha Construction, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 5/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Varsha Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Second Floor-25, 26, Millenium Plaza, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Raipur-492 001, Chhattisgarh Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G.. Pan: Aaefv 8399 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Centre (CPC), Bengaluru issuing intimation U/s 143(1) of the IT Act. CPC has processed the return and has triggered the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act and has made a disallowance of Rs.4,64,730/- on account of delayed payment of employee’s contribution ... that have been made available on the statue vide the Finance Act, 2021, i.e, “Explanation 5” to Section 43B and “Explanation 2” to Section 36(1)(va), i.e, as to whether those are applicable prospectively w.e.f A.Y 2021-22 onwards, or, are to be given a retrospective effect. Issue

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА
Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1550/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1550/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Lycos Internet Ltd Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacl5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1769/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Lycos Internet Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Pan:Aaacl5827B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Are Two Appeals, One By The Department Against The Order Dated 23/06/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A) & Another By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26/02/2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 263

ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

M/S.Coastal Energen Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, (Central), Chennai-1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1624/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1624 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2015-16 M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of Shri Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan, Income Tax, Central-1, No.31, Krishna, 1St Avenue, 100Ft Road, Chennai. Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083 [Pan: Aadcc0886G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Shrenik Chordia For Mr.B.Ramakrishnan,C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-1063739847(1) Dated 31.03.2024 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Pcit, For The Assessment Years 2015-16. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 263 Dated 31.03.2024 Passed By Pcit, Chennai. 2.0 The Only Issue Arising From The Six Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is Regarding Exercise Of Revisionary Power U/S 263 By The Ld.Pcit, Chennai Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2024 Qua Order U/S 143(3)

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia for Mr.B.Ramakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Olive Bar & Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 6255/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriolive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. V/S. Acit, Circle-13(1)(1), बनाम Ltd. Mumbai 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Maharashtra-400020 Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit, Circle-13(1)(2), V/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Mumbai बनाम Ltd. R. No. 218, Aayakar 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Bhavan, M K Road, Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Maharashtra-400020 Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani
Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Olive Bar and Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 13(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5924/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriolive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. V/S. Acit, Circle-13(1)(1), बनाम Ltd. Mumbai 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Maharashtra-400020 Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit, Circle-13(1)(2), V/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Mumbai बनाम Ltd. R. No. 218, Aayakar 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Bhavan, M K Road, Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Maharashtra-400020 Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani
Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Smt. Usha Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 480/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Eagle Hunter Solutions Vs Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax (Appeals)-25 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110016 Pan: Aabce0565E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 36(1)

Year 2020-21. 2.Grounds taken in this appeal are as under: “1. Disallowance as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1) (va)- The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department has erred in law as well as on facts in adding ... provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1) (va) on account of delayed payment of employee contribution towards PF/ESI. 2 Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) 2. Penalty Proceedings initiated u/s 270A(2)(a)- The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department has erred in law as well

Binay Rambahal Singh, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1099/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1099/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Binay Rambahal Singh Income Tax Officer, 112, Sankaip Row House Society Ward-2(3)(6), Surat, Aayakar बनाम Ugat Canal Road, Jahangira Bag. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs Near Prabhudarshan Society, Surat-395 001 Surat-394 130 [Pan : Azyps 7939 M] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 139Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee also submitted that constitutional validity of provisions of Section 36(1)(va) alongwith Explanation-2 and Explanation-5 to Section 43B of the Act are challenged before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Special Civil Application No. 270 of 2022, which has been admitted for hearing vide order

Shyamal Kundu, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1112/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C' BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय

Vardhman Textiles Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ludhiana

ITA 80/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Banaluru for the assessment year 2019-2020 on 27.10.2020 an amount of Rs.24,16,427/- was disallowed by virtue of provision contained in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which pertained to sum received from employees as contribution to provided Fund, ESI etc. 2.2 That assessee being aggrieved ... 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

Canpac Trends Pvt. Ltd., Bavla vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 271/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.271/Ahd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2017-18 Canpac Trends Pvt.Ltd. Plot No.338, Chiyada Village : Chiyada B/H. Jerala Gidc Ahmedabad – 382 220 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcv 9858 M बनाम / V/S. The Acit Circle-1(1)(2) Ahmedabad (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Dr. Sanjay Lal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: : 16/01/2025 20/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre - Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], Dated 25/08/2021, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"], Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year 2017-18.

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Sanjay Lal, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

failed to address all issues raised by the AO. The AO focused on two major issues during the assessment: (i) Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va): • The AO observed that the assessee had delayed depositing employees' contributions to PF/ESI amounting to Rs.1,41,730/-, beyond the due dates prescribed under ... filing the return under Section 139(1), the AO disallowed the claim, citing the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va). (ii) Addition under Section 56(2)(viib): • The assessee issued 7,85,000 shares at a face value of Rs.10/-, charging premiums ranging from

Kinetic Advertising India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6051/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekinetic Advertising India Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax – Circle 16(1), Mumbai 7Th & 8Th Floor, Wing-A, The Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Orb-Sahar, Village Marol, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri East, Mumbai, Sahar P & T Colony S.O., Andheri-400 099 Pan: Aabcp1311M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR. DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

delayed payment of employees' contributions to the Provident Fund amounting to Rs.5,44,561/-, which was disallowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. This issue was brought before the Tribunal; however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Checkmate Services

Shree Shivam Attires Pvt. Ltd., Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 111/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 111/Rpr/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Yash Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Infrastructure Vs. ITO (supra) are as under: 13. As far as the issue involved pertaining to claiming of deduction under section 36 (1) (va) of the IT Act 1961 on delayed payment of employees share of contribution towards ESI/PF of Rs. 19,84,415, in the instant case is concerned ... could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously

Singodwala Warehousing and Logistics Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 1093/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH
Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 5

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