“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)

Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Limited, Kochi vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 71/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daslakeshore Hospital & Rsearch Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Centre Ltd. 1(1), C.R. Building, Xvi Maradu, Nh 47 Bye Pass Vs. Is Press Road, Netoor P.O., Kochi 682040 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aaacl4923A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini V. Thampi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Rameshkumar Lalan Tiwari, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(5), Surat

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 484/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.484/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rameshkumar Lalan Tiwari Income Tax Officer, Ward- 181, Bapa Sitaram Society, 2(3)(5), Surat, Aayakar Vs Kawas Hazira Road, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, 394270 Surat-395001 Pan : Adrpt 1473 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

record showing the facts that no such deduction is claimed by the assessee. 3. Against ground No.2, which relates to disallowance of under section 36(1)(va) of Rs.79,88,918/- on account of delay in depositing of employees contribution of ESI/PF. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that ... petition in the case of M/s A S Construction Vs. Union of India in order dated 11.01.2022 in challenging the virus in Section 36(1)(va). The ld AR for the assessee filed copy of the order of jurisdictional High Court has admitted a petition in the case

Maroli Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd, Na vs. Arivs.ACIT, Navsari

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 18/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.18/Srt/2021 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shree Maroli Vibhag Khand Assistant Commissioner Of Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Navsari Vs Post. Maroli Bazar, Tal: Circle, Aayakar Bhavan, Jalalpore, Dist. Navsari- Nr. Charpool Police Station, 396436 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 Pan : Aaaam 1187 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Construction vs. Union of India dated 11.01.2022 admitted the petition of petitioner in challenging the Constitutional validity of provision of section 36(1)(va) along with Explanation 2 and the Explanation 5 to Section 43B of the Act as ultra vires. Therefore, at this stage the grounds of appeal raised

Harbir Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon

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

ITA 541/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Also Denied The Relief Vide Order Dated

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

arising from the intimation order dated 25/09/2020 passed by the Assessing Officer towards late payment of employees contribution to ESIC/PF under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an intimation dated 10/02/2019 passed u/s 143(1

Ghibellines Security Solutions Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (OSD), New Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1399/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of It Act & Therefore Are Allowable Under Law. 2. Without Prejudice To Above, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Adjustments As Per The Intimation U/S 143(1) Ignoring The Proposition Of Law That Notwithstanding The Disallowance Made U/S 36(1)(Va), Such Expenditure Is Eligible For Deduction U/S 37(1) Of It Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete, Modify/ Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal With The Permission Of The Hon’Ble Appellate Authority.”

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

arising from the intimation order dated 24/12/2021 passed by the Assessing Officer towards late payment of employees contribution to ESIC/PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2 Ghibelliness Security Solutions Ltd. 2. Grounds taken in this appeal are as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred

JCIT, Special Range - 1, New Delhi vs. Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1806/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40Section 40a

made by the AO on account of employee's contribution to PF deposited beyond the due date u/s 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Income Tax Department vs. S D Material Handlers Private Limited, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं

Amit Industries, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman WD., Daman

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Amit Industries, Vs. The Ito, Survey No.168/328, 329, 330, Daman Ward, Dabhel Industrial Co-Op. Soc. Daman Ltd., Dabhel, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfa7399H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 15/12/2023 Date Of Hearing 21/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

ITA 2164/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleviraj Profiles Pvt Ltd V. Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Nariman Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) V. Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building, Nariman Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Mani Jain Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 250Section 37Section 80G

confirming the action of Ld. AO in disallowing Employees Contribution to Provident Fund amounting to Rs.1,52,12,702/- invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise The Appellant submits that the aforesaid addition being erroneous

Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

ITA 1213/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Section 250Section 37Section 80G

M/S Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Co., Junagadh vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle - 1 (1), Rajkot - Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bombay). The disallowance is prayed for deletion. 3) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 43B overrides Section 36 (1) (va) and that disallowance under Section 36 (1) (va) was applicable only if the said contribution are not remitted within the due date ... allowance. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendments in section 36(1)(va) as well as 43B made vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of explanation that

M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commiissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 267/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Jaika Automobiles & Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nagpur. Finance Pvt. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj3178K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj4462A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K. P. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’) Dated 15.03.2022 & 23.12.2021 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.267/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

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

M/S. Jaika Automobiles and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 193/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

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

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 605/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

1)(va) on account of appellant's failure to pay the employee's contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law and tenable on facts and is therefore, fully confirmed. Appellant's Grounds on this issue fails ... 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

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 574/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Geekay Facility Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 145/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Geekay Facility Management Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai Private Limited Income Tax Office, G-11, Tulsani Chambers, Maharshi Karve Rd, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccg1483G Assessee By : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, Ca Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 13.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. AR

Section 224Section 36(1)(va)

provident fund, employees state insurance scheme and labor welfare fund paid beyond the due dates specified in the respective Act, are disallowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Geekay Facility Management P. Ltd; A.Y. 2018-19 03. Brief history shows that the assessee filed the appeal against ... view of the decision, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (A) confirming the disallowance of ₹30,93,567/- under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 224(X) of the Act. 010. In the result, all the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Private Limited, Vki, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

ITA 561/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 36(1)(va)

deposit of employees contribution to Employees State Insurance beyond due date prescribed under the ESI Act amounting to Rs. 3 ,09,337/- under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard the appellant has contended that no disallowance has been made ... wherein under identical set of facts, as in the case of the assessee company, additions made w.r.t Section 36(1)(va) under Section 143(1) were deleted by Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench, holding such adjustment in the processing to be outside the scope of Section 143(1

DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb Jaipur vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Private Limited, V K I Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

ITA 560/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 36(1)(va)

Sm Workforce Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. ITO, Ward, Bhiwadi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 426/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 2Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

regarding addition of Rs.6,98,230/- which was made u/s 154 by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax. 7.1 In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that to provide clarity and certainty on non-applicability of section 43B on employees' contribution ... specified funds, the Budget, 2021 has proposed to amend the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and section 43B as under: "(a) amend section 36(1)(va) of the Act by inserting another explanation 2 to the said clause to clarify that the provision of section 43B does not apply

Akriti Jewelcraftz (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Akriti Jewelcraftz (P) Ltd., Vs Acit, B-7/107A, Flat No.002, Gf, Circle-1(1), Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 029. Pan: Aakca8307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘Ld. Faa’ For Short) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 23.12.2021 Passed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Articles & Things Of Customized Nature From Precious & Semi-Precious Stones & Other Articles Under The Name & Style Of Akriti Jewelcraftz Private Limited. During The Year Under Consideration, The Appellant Has Filed The Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Inr 74,28,280/-. The Said Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant Was Processed By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre ("Ao") Under Section 143(1) Of The Act At An Income Of Inr 80,05,630/- By Disallowing Inr 5,77,345/- U/S 36(L)(Va) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esi. The Appellant Filed The Appeal To Hon'Ble Cit(A) Against The Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

decided in favour of the assessee. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeal) erred in not appreciating the facts and law that amendments in section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B of the Act vide Finance Act, 2021 is applicable from 01-04-2021 onwards i.e., prospectively