“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)

Jai Prakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The ADIT CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 311/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

Transport Corporation (2014) 44 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat) had held that employees' share of PF/ESI not deposited within the date prescribed in explanation to section 36(1)(va) cannot be allowed. Concluding paras of the Hon'ble Court's judgment are extracted as under: 8. In view of the above ... reasons stated above, and considering section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with sub-clause (x) of clause 24 of section 2, it is held that with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause

Neerus Ensembles Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 66/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Neerus Ensembles (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 16(1) Pan:Aaccn1554D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22/11/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Retail In Garments & Other Accessories. Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2019- 20 On 21.10.2019 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.6,95,37,230/-. The Cpc Sent An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Determining Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.7,14,16,250/- Wherein Disallowance

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

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

ITA No 66 of 2023 Neerus Ensembles P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Pennar Industries Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 78/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.48/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Pennar Industries Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Aabcp3074H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.78/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Asstt. Cit Vs. Pennar Industries Ltd Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcp3074H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Mohd. Afzal राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

ITA Nos 48 and 78 of 2024 Pennar Industries Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME

Pennar Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 48/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

ITA Nos 48 and 78 of 2024 Pennar Industries Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME

Tbr Infra Pvt Ltd, Alampuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5/VIZ/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.05 /Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tbr Infra (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.7-130/2 Income Tax Nh-16, Alampuram Circle-1 West Godavari Dist. Rajahmundry [Pan : Aafct6445E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य

Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumara.Y. : 2016-17 Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Acit, 1C, Front Part Of Front Building, National E-Assessment Centre, Udyog Vihar, Ecotech-Ii, Greater New Delhi. Noida 201306, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecd 8832 G Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Dua, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Dua, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 2Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43(6)Section 43B

sustainable legally, The Assessing Officer erred in disallowing thepayment of Provident Fund and ESI 5.1 amounting to total Rs 19,93,460/- under section 36(1)(va) and treating the same income of the assessee under section 2 (24)(x) of the Income Tax Act,1961, without considering that

Grid Controller of India (Formerly Known As Power System Operation Corporation Ltd), Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2326/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmagrid Controller Of India Vs. Dcit (Formerly Known As Power System Circle-19(1), Operation Corporation Ltd) Delhi. B-9, 1St Floor, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, Hauz Khas, South Delhi, New Delhi Pan No. Aafcp2086B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 50

Addition of Rs.3,11,94,858/- has been made in the computed income for disallowance under section 36 (1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for delayed deposit of Employee Benefits and Provident Fund contribution & ESI. Assessee claim that as per the judgment of Supreme Court of India ... disallowance of Rs.3,11,94,858/- made by the AO (CPC) on account of employees contribution to recognized provident fund (PF) invoking section 36(1)(va) of the Act. (ii) That the above said disallowance has been confirmed ignoring the settled position in law that employees contribution

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1172/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri DhrunalBhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80

date of payment specified under the ESI Act. Thus, the AO by invoking the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act added the same to the total income of the assessee. 11. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also

Aniruddha Banerjee, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

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

ITA 690/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

confirming the additions of Rs. 4,85,04,102/- on account of delay in deposit of PF/ESI by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. For that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC disallowing ... paid 3 AY: 2018-19 Shri Aniruddha Banerjee within due date that such amount should only be disallowed for the purpose of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. However, it is clarified that

Kamakshi Jute Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dcic, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 1073/KOL/2023 is dismissed

ITA 1073/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

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

return was processed and from the Tax Audit Report it was found that the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B(b) of the Act for delay in payment of PF&ESI amounting to Rs. 40,91,370/-. During the processing ... attention to page no. 9–12 of the appeal order which is reproduced as below: “The language of newly proposed explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and explanation 5 to section 43B makes it clear that the amendment is retrospective. Recently Apex Court has settled the issue

Itd Cementation India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1401/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dcit Itd Cementation India Ltd. Central Circle 5(1) 9Th Floor, Prima Bay, Room No.1928, 19 Th Floor, Tower-B, Gate No.5, Air India Building, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 072 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1426A Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ramkrishna Bandi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ramkrishna Bandi, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing Rs. 1,97,740 under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in depositing contribution received from employees to the employee's contribution fund after the due date under respective Act but before due date ... decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). iv. disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of ₹1,97,740/- was made as employees' ITD Cementation India Ltd; A.Y. 2018-19 contribution was paid beyond

Arvinder Paul Jit Singh Gill, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Nalin Nohria & Shri B.K.Nohria,CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

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), NFAC ... account of assessee’s failure to pay the employees’ contribution of PF / ESI within the prescribed due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act is strictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under the prima facie adjustment as envisaged under section 143(1

Real Time Engineering (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 602/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Real Time Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward- P-165/1 (A-2/2), Diamond Park 2(1), Kolkata. Vs. Kalua, South 24 Parganas- 700104, West Bengal, India. (Pan: Aaccr1055M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Shree Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 271/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.271/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer 26-9-28, Wood Yard Street Ward-1(5) Near Reading Room Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aanas1911Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, AR)For Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

Annaswamy Sekhar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1000/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1000/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annaswamy Sekhar Dcit बनाम 33, Krishna Colony, Singanallur, Non-Corporate Circle-4, / Vs. Coimbatore-641 005. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajups-1902-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 06-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Smiths Medical India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Central Processsin Centre, Bangalore, Judicial Assessing Officer: WD 21(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh,DR

Section 143(1)

allowable as deduction under section respective funds is not allowable as deduction under section respective funds is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 36(1)(va) of the Act. It is undisputed that the said amount of undisputed that the said amount of Rs.6

DCIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wanbury Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3626/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Wanbury Limited, B Wing, 10Th Floor, Income Tax, Circle – 15(3)(1), Bsel Tech Park, Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Vs. Sector 30, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp Vashi Railway Station, M.K. Road, Vashi, Mumbai - 400020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aabcp5939P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2024 Order Per : Om Prakash Kant, Am This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 07.02.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [In Short The Ld. Cit(A)] For Assessment Year 2015-16, Raising Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,29,63,154/-, Without Considering The Circular No. 22/2015 Dated 17.12.2015 Of The Board Regarding Employer'S Contribution To Funds For The Welfare Of Employees In Terms Of Section 43B (B)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

funds which are governed by section contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. a) of the Act. 2. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A), Mumbai on the 2. The appellant ... Revenue the only issue of that in the appeal filed by the Revenue the only issue of disallowance of ESI/PF under section 36(1)(va) of ESI/PF under section 36(1)(va) of the Income- of ESI/PF under section 36(1)(va

Gnb Motors (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-13(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 721/KOL/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Ray, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 44A

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE

Genesis Intellectuals (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 591/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial

Dipak Kanti Mazumder, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1040/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1040/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dipak Kanti Mazumder Asst. Director Of Income Tax, 43, Raja S.C. Mallick Road Vs Cpc, Bengaluru West Bengal - 700084 [Pan : Aevpm3879E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2024 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, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 165 Days & Petition For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed & We Find That The Delay Was On Account Of Not Following Up Of The E-Mail Id By The Assessee On Which The First Appellate Order Was Received. However, When The Assessee Was Apprised Of The Same By His Authorized Representative, He Immediately Took Steps For Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. Considering The Same & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

taxmann.com 178 (SC), dealing with this issue has settled down the controversy deciding in favour of the revenue holding that strict compliance with Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) is a must to claim deduction and provisions of Section 43B of the Act cannot be applied on employees