← 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)

Sh. Surendra Kumar Patni, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Surendra Kumar Patni, C/O. M/S. Kalani & Co., 5Th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhi Nagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 015. Pan No.: Adupp9249 D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-2, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 005. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.C. Parwal, Ca, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2024 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Jaipur Dated 25.06.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Mr. P.C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Nikhaar Fashions, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1020/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mr. P.C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Appu Nutritions Private Limited, Chemmanur Hall, Bangalore vs. DCIT-Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore, Bmtc Building, Koramangala

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

ITA 1720/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2015-16 Appu Nutritious Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O, Idiom Design & Circle – 1(1)(1), Consulting Ltd., Joseph Bangalore. Chemmanur Hall, 1St Cross, 1St Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore – 560 038. Pan : Aabca 7049 M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ajith Kumar, Director Respondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.07.2024 Of The Cit(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Nfac], For The Ay 2015-16. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2015 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Was Issued To The Assessee. During The Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Ajith Kumar, DirectorFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND

DB Engineering & Consulting Gmbh, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1377/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & It(It)A No.1377/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Db Engineering & Consulting Gmbh, Dcit (International 82/4, 3Rd Floor, North Wing, Hulkul Brigade Taxation), Centre, Lavelle Road, Ward No.76, Vs. Circle – 1(1), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan :Aaecd 9085 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Susan Mathew, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Susan Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC. While processing the return, the CPC made an addition of Rs.22,20,976/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act towards belated remittance of employees’ contribution towards PF and the CPC applied surcharge @ 5% instead of 2% as computed

ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 999/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

Employees Provident Fund Scheme framed under Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is not found applicable to the appellant. Section 36(1) (va) explains the term due date as Due date" means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to 7 I.T.A

ACIT, Circle -34, Kolkata vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 981/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

Employees Provident Fund Scheme framed under Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is not found applicable to the appellant. Section 36(1) (va) explains the term due date as Due date" means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to 7 I.T.A

Creative Tannery Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Company Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1663/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘A’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg

ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 1001/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

Employees Provident Fund Scheme framed under Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is not found applicable to the appellant. Section 36(1) (va) explains the term due date as Due date" means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to 7 I.T.A

ACIT, Circle -34, Kolkata vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 1000/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

Employees Provident Fund Scheme framed under Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is not found applicable to the appellant. Section 36(1) (va) explains the term due date as Due date" means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to 7 I.T.A

Smt. Lingammal Ramaraju Shastra Prathishta Trust, Rajapalayam vs. ACIT (Exemptions), Coimbatore

ITA 1250/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 264

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Neeta Tiwari, Lucknow vs. ITO-4(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 493/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 Neeta Tiwari V. The Ito-4(1) A-6, South City Lucknow - New Ambedkar University Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afopt6232J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Rs.44,27,790/- after making an addition of Rs.19,51,830/- by invoking the ITA No.493/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 6 provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act for late deposit of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First ... addition of Rs.19,51,825/- made by CPC in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act on account of disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax, 1961 owing to late deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI. 3. BECAUSE the Ld. "CIT(A)", while

Bsnl Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1957/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1957/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav R. ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 44ASection 80P

same is deposited with the prescribed authority governing PF/ESI within the prescribed due date as provided in the relevant Acts. In other words, section 36(1)(va) provides that prior to the deduction for such amount, initially, it has to be treated as ‘income’ u/s.2

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5262/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe / Ms. Aasavari KadamFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

appeal, pertains to disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.C) under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that ... towards employees’ contribution to P.F. and E.S.I.C., after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute is not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid decision, are as follows:- "53. The distinction between

Ats Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2984/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 2984/Del/2023, (A.Y.2018-19)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

made by the AO on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution towards Provident fund invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) read with Section

Kottarakara Taluk Government Servant Co-Op Society Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO Ward 2, Kollam

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 402/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None---For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant

Zahir Kasam Memon, Mumbai vs. Addl-JCIT (A)-2, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 914/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Murtaza Quresh Ghadiali- CA &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh-
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

giving any opportunity of being heard. 2. The Auditor have by mistakenly putted the total amount of PF and ESIC whereas as per section 36(1)(va) only the Employee Contribution towards PF and ESIC is to be reported. 3. Without understanding the nature of Business ... order dated 19th December 2023, confirmed the adjustment of Rs.1.11,01,285/- towards delayed contribution of PF/ESIC under section 36(1)(va). Thus, Rs. 97.25.003/- towards Employer's contribution was fully allowed as it was paid before due date of filing the return of income. 6) Further, I was advised

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4290/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dow Chemical International Private Dy. Cit, Circle 14(1)(2) Limited Mumbai Unit No. 801, 8Th Floor, Building No.9, Vs. Gigaplex, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400 708

For Appellant: Shri Hemang MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Appellant even though there was no imminent statutory due date in the matter. Disallowance of Rs 5,98,22,466 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act 4. Erred in confirming disallowance of Rs 5,98,22,466 under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Without prejudice

Coregeo Tech (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1626/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

M/S. Tirubala International Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-VI, Kanpur

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

ITA 147/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of C-7, Panki Industrial Area, Vs. Income Tax, Range-Vi, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan:Aaect2086J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vikas Garg, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Dcit-6, Kanpur Passed On 19.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ao, Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs. 29,164/- On Account Of Late Payment Towards Employees Contribution To Esi. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Payment Of Rs.29,164 Towards Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund Was Made Before The "Due Date" Of Filing Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore There Could Not Be Any Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount To The Returned Income. 3. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Due Date As Mentioned In 36(1) (Va) Is To Be Read In Conjunction With Section 43B(B)

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Garg, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 195Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

read in conjunction with section 43B(b) 1 A.Y. 2014-15 M/s Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd. and due date as mentioned in section 36(1)(va) is the due date as mentioned in section 43B (b). 4. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in disallowing ... towards ESIC was paid after the due date and was disallowable in the light of the explanation to the provisions of section 36(1)(va). Since, the assessee did not submit any reply, the amount of Rs.29,164/- towards ESIC paid after the due date was disallowed under section 36

Ascent Constructions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3217/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3217/Del/2023, (A.Y.2017-18)

Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

NFAC has erred in confirming the addition/disallowance of Rs. 17,99,567/- on account of contributions received from employees for funds referred in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and assessing the total income of the Assessee at Rs. 4,10,33,179/-. 4. In view of the facts ... 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of contributions received from employees for funds referred in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has failed to consider the fact that the deposit of employee contribution