“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)

Shree Stones Crusher, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 750/JPR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: DR. S. SEETHA LAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl CIT-DR

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)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 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

M/S. the Kothari Wheels, Pune vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, Banglore

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

ITA 1420/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)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

Gurusamy Aadhinarayanan, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, CPC Bengaluru, Bangaluru

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

ITA 1041/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1041/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 Gurusamy Aadhinarayanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 25, Vignesam Layout, Gandhinagar Ii Ward 1, Pollachi. Extn., Udumalaipet, Tiruppur 642 126. [Pan:Aclpa5394G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Kumaresh, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 25.05.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 12 Days In Filing The Appeal & Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N. Kumaresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

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

short] by making disallowance of employees contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI not deposited on or before the due date under section 36(1)(va) of the Act being ₹.10,24,122/- and added exempted income of ₹.22,963/- (interest on PPF account). On appeal, by following the decision ... disallowed the PF & ESI remittance on the ground that the same were not deposited on or before the due date under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The contention of the assessee is that since the due date of remittance being Government holidays (in May & July), it cannot

Megha Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 448/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: None

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

considering the due dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read 2 Megha Yadav 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

Jiwanram Sheoduttrai Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Range - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 741/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial

M/S. Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ernakulam vs. The PCIT, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 847/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Ix/639, Edathala P.O. Of Income Tax -1 Vs. Ernakulam 683561 C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road [Pan:Aaacv 5491P] Kochi - 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 30/10/2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (Pr. Cit) Vide Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30.03.2022. 2. The 68-Day Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Explained By An Affidavit Dated 14.7.2023 By Shri A.D. Krishnan, Managing Director Of The Assessee-Company. We Find The Reasons Stated Therein As Genuine & Debilitative Of The Assessee’S Capacity In Filing The Appeal In Time. The Appeal Was Accordingly Admitted & The Hearing Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 269SSection 36(1)(va)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Strides Shasun Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7400/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.7400 /मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2013-14) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase & Dr. Samuel Pitta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/01/2024 /01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30/10/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Ten Grounds Of Appeal. The Assessee Has Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal Vide Application Dated 26/10/2023. 3. The Ground No.1 Of Appeal Is General In Nature, Hence, Require No Separate Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate with Shri Ninand PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase &

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच ”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी अमरजीत "सह, लेखाकार सद"य के

Shri Sandeep Jagdishchandra Dave, Ahmedabad vs. Teh Pr. CIT -3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 176/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Shukhadia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

late deposit of employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC for a sum of Rs. 23,72,554/-, which was disallowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer only disallowed a sum of Rs. 4,57,757/- and hence the difference ... PF/ESI we observe that evidently vide letter dated 22.07.2016, the assessee has admitted that there was late deposit of employees’ contribution under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. We are further unable to accept the fact that since this issue was discussed by the Assessing Officer during the course

Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., Bhachau vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2636/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2636/Ahd/2017 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, Plot No.617/1-618-620, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nh-8A,Po.Samakhiyari Ahmedabad (Piprapati), Bhachau Taluka, Samakhiyari-370150. Pan: Aaics6992G

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, with Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the addition made by the AO under the provision of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 12. The AO during the assessment proceeding found that the assessee deposited employee contribution towards the provident fund amounting ... 1,50,202/- after the due date specified under PF Act. Therefore, the AO, by invoking the provision of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act treated the same as income and added to the total income of the assessee. Asstt. Year

Reliance Smsl Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1726/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. A.R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

36(1)(va) of the Act 4. Erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing 2,33,94,090/- under section 36(1)(va) of Act on the basis that there has been delay in depositing of employees' contribution towards Employee State Insurance ("ESI") as reported ... employees' contribution towards ESI was made before the due date of filing the return of Income, accordingly such payment cannot be disallowed under section 36(1)(va) or even under section 43B. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, vary or alter including by substitution any of the grounds

Marca Coroma Bathtech Pvt. Ltd., Jhajjar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rohtak

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

ITA 1993/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyamarca Coroma Bathtech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2, 36Th Mile Stone, Ganpati Industrial Area, Rohtak. Delhi Rohtak Road, Bahadur Garh, Jhajjar – 124 507 (Haryana). (Pan : Aalcm7040A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jagjit Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2024 Date Of Order : 11.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Jagjit Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

addition/disallowance of Rs.12,16,628/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of contributions received from employees for funds referred in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A)/CPC has failed to appreciate that the Finance Act, 2021 amendment is prospective in nature ... have heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. Ld. Counsel of the assessee contended that in the present case, disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been mechanically done by lifting the dates from the tax audit report. He submitted that in fact

Yudo Hot Runners India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi Present Juridiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

amounting to Rs.68,36,426/- as well as addition Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 2 of 4 under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act towards late payment of Employees Provident Fund and ESI contribution amounting to Rs.3,74,382/-. Assessment Order was passed ... meanwhile, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the addition under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.1

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 467/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

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

Ansal Housing Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 438/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaansal Housing Ltd, Vs. Acit, 606, 6Th Floor, Indra Circle-1(1), Prakash, 21, Barakhamba New Delhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca0377R Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Sudarshan Roy, Adv Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 31/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr DR

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

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 ... virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character

Ashok Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1600/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

wrong premise that such amount represents late deposits of employees I.T.A. No.1600/Del/2023 2 contribution towards PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va) as against the correct position that such amount represents employer’s contribution rather than employees contribution. The ld. counsel submitted that compliance of Section 43B has been made ... amount of Rs.17,83,170/- represents employer’s contribution and thus is governed by Section 43B of the Act and provisions of Section 36(1)(va) would not apply in respect of employer’s contribution. The ld. counsel further pointed out that the aforesaid amount of Rs.17,83,170/- attributable

Neha Aviation Management Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2969/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(1)Section 199Section 2(24)Section 36

which does not fall within the definition of income u/s 2(24) of the Act and are not governed by the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Thus, submitted that the disallowance of Rs. 20,23,524/- is liable to be deleted. Page ... does not fall within the definition of income u/s 2(24) of the Act and not governed by the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground No. 4 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In ground No. 5, the assessee contended that the Authorities

Kathleen Confectioners, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-32, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1187/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate & Shri SonuFor Respondent: Shri Loviesh Shelley, JCIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various ... 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

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 466/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

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

Vaco Binary Semanties LLP, Haryana vs. Circle 4(1), Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 327/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Sood, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36

Safal Hospitality and Maintanance Service, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 76/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438

while making the aforesaid disallowance due to the below mentioned reasons: Firstly, the appellant wants to reiterate the extracts of section 2(24) section 36(1)(va) and section 438 as below: Section 2 (24) "income" includes- [(x) any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions ... previous year in which the sum is actually paid by him) (2) On combine reading of aforesaid section 2(24)(x) section 36(1)(va) and section 43B Your Honour would observe that primarily any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund