“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)

Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 117/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.116 & 117/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pragati Green Meadows Vs. Dy. C. I. T. & Resorts Ltd Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccp5283H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR

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

ITA Nos 116 and 117 of 2023 Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ

Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 116/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR

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

ITA Nos 116 and 117 of 2023 Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1499/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 14ASection 80I

Revenue. 16. The next issue that came up for our consideration from additional ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is disallowance under Section 36(1)(va), in respect of belated payment of employee contribution to Provident Fund. The AO has disallowed the belated payment of Employees Contribution Provident Fund ... belated payment of Employees Contribution to PF and ESI beyond the due dates specified under respective statue is not allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with 43B, read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 17. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme

Premier Irrigation Adritee Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1521/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1521/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Premier Irrigation Adritee Pvt. Ltd. ....…………….......…....………....Appellant 17/1C, Alipore Road, Niharika, Kolkata-700027. [Pan: Aafcm4800Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 25, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Impugned Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Summarily Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Company For Alleged Non-Compliance Of The Notices Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case Since He Did Not Adjudicate Each Of The Grounds Of Appeal The Facts For Which Were Available To Him In The Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer & The Statement Of Facts Filed By The Appellant Assessee. 2. That The Impugned Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) On 9H January 2024 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant

Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,11,832 in the total income of the Appellant Company under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, although admittedly such amount as deposited within the due date of furnishing the return of income prescribed under section 139(1

Sankalp Recreation Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 576/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

they were incurred for legitimate business activities. The assessee also disputed the AO’s disallowance of employee contributions to PF & ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3.2. The CIT(A) partially upheld the AO’s order, applying a 12% net profit rate on the unaccounted receipts ... that the disallowance should not be made because it was not based on any incriminating material. The CIT(A) held that disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) relates to statutory obligations and does not necessarily require incriminating material for such an addition, as it is independent of the search findings

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Sankalp Recreation Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 569/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

Abbott Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2756/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, section 36(1) (va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from 1-4-1988. Through the same amendment, by section 3(b), section 2(24) - which ... income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated

Sakthikanna Constrns Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward 6(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1235/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार

Virendra Singh Saini, Haryana vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bengalore

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

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

taxability of such income in the hands of the assessee. Once such an amount becomes income of the employer-assessee, then section 36(1)(va) comes into play for providing the deduction. This provision provides that: `(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which ... deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides that a deduction otherwise allowable

Gandhar Oil Refinery (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. CC 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3889/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalgandharoilrefinery(India)Ltd., Acit, Cc-5(1), Vs. 18Th Floor, Dlh Park, Sv Air India Building Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400062.. Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3996J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 35Section 36(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT

Rajendra Shankarrao Jadhao, Amravati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Amravati Circle, Amravati

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

ITA 225/NAG/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

date of filing of return and as per time limit prescribed under the relevant Act and the same were allowable expenses under section 36(1)(va) at Rs.1,26,445/- therefore, the addition confirmed without considering the reply by CIT(A) NFAC is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive

Alexis Multi Speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 55/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(1)(a)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMC MATTER ITA no.55/Nag

Arumuganadar Narayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 806/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 806/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arumuga Nadar Narayanan, No. 20/57, New Thandavaraya Gramani Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021. [Pan: Aadpn-2730-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-17, Vide Order Dated 07.03.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Is Erroneous & Bad In Law As The Same Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Provisions Of The Law. :-2-:

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 154(8)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री महावीर सिंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवं

Bharat Textiles and Proofing Industries Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1621/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Bharat Textiles & Proofing – The Ito, Industries Ltd., Corporate Ward-1(2), New No.64, Old No.43, Chennai. Sattana Naicken Street, Choolai, Chennai-600 112. [Pan: Aaacb 2540 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT

Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Sheo Parshad, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 597/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 288Section 36

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) 7 permits deduction of expenditure which

ACIT Corp Circle 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Amtex Info Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 546/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.546/Chny/2018 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Amtex Info Solutions Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd., Plot No.54, 27Th Street, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. Sri Krishna Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600 095. [Pan: Aaica 6676K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : None JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Suresh. Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 12.12.2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By The Assessing Officer [A.O] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30.03.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh. JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

contribution to ESI and EPF u/s. 43B of the Act, which is actually applicable to employers part of contribution, then the provisions of section 36(1) (va) and 2(24)(x) of the Act, which governs the situation arising out of non-payment of employees contribution

Marine Electricals (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT C 9(2)(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3735/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year 2021-22 Marine Electricals (India) Dcit-9(2)(2)(1), Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, B-2, Udyag Sadan No.2, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Midc, Andheri (E), Churchgate, Mumbai Mumbai Pan : Aafcm3153Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-09-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-09-2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA

Norben Tea & Exports Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 833/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

which was deposited later and in view of the provision of section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) a sum of Rs. 13,30,802/- was treated as the assessee’s income and added back in the computation of income. However, instead of adding ... Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein the provision of Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis Section 43B of the Act have been interpreted and it has been held that the employees’ contribution should be paid

Bernhard Schulte Ship Management (India) Private Limited, Powai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 1497/MUM/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Puthur Ramachandran VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

Supra)holds that the deductions can be claimed or adjustments can be made under section 141(1)(a)(iv), read with section 36(1)(va) only when the employer deposits the contributions in the employees accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the Employees Provident Fund Employees State

Maxx Solutions, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 3499/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 3499/Del/2023 (A.Y 2018-19)

For Appellant: Sh. Prem Prakash Adv & Sh

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(Va)

next working date i.e. within time and hence allowable.” 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the provision of Section 36(1)(Va) of the Act has to be strictly followed and by relying on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services