← 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)

Simbhaoli Sugars Limited, Hapur vs. ACIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 2104/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The "Due Date" For Furnishing The Return Of Income Under I. Tax Act.

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 ... prescribed time – by way of contribution of the employees’ share to their credit with the relevant fund isto be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited

Mysore Sannasetty Ramakrishna, Mysuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysuru

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

ITA 199/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Mysore Sannasetty Ramakrishna, The Deputy # 64, B Block, Commissioner Of Opp. Scanray Income Tax, Technologies, Circle – 1[1] & Kiadb Housing Layout, Tps, Hebbal Ii Stage, Vs. Mysuru. Mysuru – 570 017. Pan: Afbpr9660K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Divyapalsinh Tejpalsinh Jadeja, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 579/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

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 438 its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly As discussed previously ... prescribed time by way of contribution of the employees' share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers' contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited

Divyapalsinh Tejpalsinh Jadeja, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 578/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

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 438 its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly As discussed previously ... prescribed time by way of contribution of the employees' share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers' contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited

Bose Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 435/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 435/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bose Management Services Private Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Limited Vs Kolkata P-82, Dakshini Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Canal South Road Kolkata - 700105 [Pan : Aadcb1495J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/05/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Under These Circumstances, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Instant Appeal Ex- Parte Qua The Assessee, On The Basis Of Available Records & Hearing The Ld. D/R.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 88/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.88/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 10, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Income Tax/Ito, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aabct0551H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Selva Moorthy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 16.11.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Addl./Jcit(A), Varanasi] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A) In Treating Employees’ Pf Contribution As Income By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P. Selva Moorthy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

assessee challenging the action of ld. Addl./JCIT(A) in treating employees’ PF contribution as income by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. No.88/Chny/24 3. We note that the assessee remitted employees’ PF contribution within

Moog Motion Controls Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 184/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K. P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

refund of Rs.54,16,070/-. The said return was processed on 17.03.2021 by the CPC, Bengaluru, and there was a disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act for the delayed remittance of the employees’ contribution of Rs.2,60,000/- and there was also ... assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the disallowance for delayed remittance of employees’ contribution as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., and Others

Markolines Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 366/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

towards Employees’ Contribution to PF and ESIC, 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 under:– "53. The distinction between ... 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

Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd., Belapur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-15(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1170/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

towards Employees' Contribution to PF and ESIC, 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 under:- "53. The distinction between ... 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

ACIT-15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2967/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

towards Employees' Contribution to PF and ESIC, 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 under:- "53. The distinction between ... 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

Indus Towers Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2172/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Ground Ground No. 10.1, employees’ No.2 10.3 contribution towards provident fund amounting to INR 3,39,382/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act 2. Denial of claim for Rs. Ground Ground No.4.1, 4.2 long term capital 3,11,52,89,182 No.3. loss

M/S Barnala Builders and Consultant, Zirakpur vs. DCIT/ACIT (Cen)-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 274/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Gurgaon dt. 27/12/2021 wherein the limited issue relates to sustenance of disallowance of employees contribution towards PF / ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Act pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19. Be it noted that this Hon’ble Tribunal vide their order dt. 18/09/2023 had allowed the application of Department ... employees contribution to PF/ESI before the prescribed due date under the relevant statue. Against the said intimation and the disallowance so made under section 36(1)(va) r.w. s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-3 Gurgaon

Anandtex International P.Ltd, Panipat vs. ACIT, Circle, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8771/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

M/S. Signotech Systems Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 514/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Signotech Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, L-151, 2Nd Floor, Ck Pearl Complex, Circle – 6(1)(1), 14Th Cross, 5Th Main, Bengaluru. 6Th Sector, Hsr Layout, Bengaluru – 560 102. Pan : Aavcs 6085 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

total income at Rs.1,40,72,000/-. Sum of Rs.28,04,527/- being employees’ contribution to ESI and EPF was disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that same was not paid within the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. 4. Aggrieved ... disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was contended that there was no delay in the payment of employees’ contribution for the months of April, May and June, 2019. It was stated that in the audit

Ramkripal Dwivedi, Indore vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Bangaluru

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 294/IND/2023[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Indore03 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2021-22 Ramkripal Dwivedi, Adit, 822, Vijay Nagar Cpc, बनाम/ New Gori Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aekpd4306G Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

agreed that the present case relates to AY 2021-22 for which the law has already been amended by introducing following provisions in Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 through Finance Act, 2021: “Explanation 2 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby

DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd, Nee Delhi

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

ITA 2149/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 194Section 194CSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

considering the due dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have ... been allowed as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act when the payment was made beyond the relevant due date under the respective acts. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and later the Gujarat High Court dismissed the challenge against this order of AO. In appeal, the court

Sakthi Hatcheries, Sivgangai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 1, Madurai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 315/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate-Erode, Virtual), LdFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

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

Everest Business Advisory India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1984/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: The Cit(A), Who Allowed Relief Of Rs.1,75,17,348/- & Upheld Remaining Disallowance Of Rs.15,03,314/-. Aggrieved, The Assessee/Appellant Filed This Appeal Challenging The Disallowance Of Rs.15,03,314/- Upheld By The Ld. Cit(A).

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI C. N.PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR

Shree Radhekrishna Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Radhekrishna Extrusions The Acit Pvt. Ltd. Vs Circle-4(1)(1), Plot No. C1 4509, Phase Iv Ahmedabad Behind Techno Ind Ltd. Vatva Ahmedabad 382 445 Gujarat Pan: Aaics 8566 N

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Appeals (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts of the case by upholding the disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.70,817/-. 3. The Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the above

Goribi Abdul Karim Nadaf, Pune vs. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Addl JCIT (A) -1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 517/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)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