“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)

Ultra Clean and Care Services P Ltd., Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 8/JAB/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

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

assessee is devoid of natural justice should be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that explanation added to section 36(1)(va) w.e.f.01.04.2021 shall have retrospective operation. The explanation creates a liability and specifically made operative from Assessment Year 2021-22 cannot have retrospective operation ... That section 36(1)(va) and section 43B and conflicting and ambiguous. The conflict should be resolved in favor of the assessee. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.8 & 9/Jab/2023 Ultra Clean and care Ser vices P.Ltd. 6. The applicant reserves his right to raise additional ground or grounds

M/S Satya Prakash Builders Ltd, Parishram Madan Mahal, Jabalpur vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 42/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Satya Prakash Builders Vs Asst .Cit, Ltd., Parishram, Madan Cirle-2(1), Mahal, Jabalpur (M.P) Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs3775N Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Saad Kidwai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

M/S A R Transport, Satna vs. Income Tax Officer, Satna

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

ITA 16/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. A.R.Transport, Vs Ito, Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Ward-1, Satna Maihar Distt., Satna-485772 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aayfa6634L Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

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

before the due date of filling of the Income Tax Return and is to be allowed as per the proviso of section 36(1)(va) and 43B of I.T. Act, 1961, respectively. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provision of section ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in considering the fact that the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. These provisions impose a liability on an assessee and therefore cannot be construed

Mehrotra Buildcon Pvt.Ltd, Satna vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Cir, Satna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2017-

ITA 15/JAB/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

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

assessee is devoid of natural justice should be deleted. 3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that explanation added to section 36(1)(va) w.e.f.01.04.2021 shall have retrospective operation. The explanation creates a liability and specifically made operative from Assessment Year 2021- 22 cannot have retrospective operation ... That section 36(1)(va) and section 43B and conflicting and ambiguous. The conflict should be resolved in favor of the assessee. 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds the CPC and CIT Appeal is not justified in disallowing the employers contribution that is covered by section43(B). The disallowance

Mehrotra Buildcon Pvt.Ltd, Satna vs. Asstt.Commissinor of Income Tax Circle, Satna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2017-

ITA 14/JAB/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

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

Coronation Cigar Co., Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Taxcircle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1728/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.1728/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Coronation Cigar Co. 63, Mg Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaefc-3151-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle -17(1) 1St Floor, Kautiliya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 051. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Falee Bilimoria & Furquan Ahemad Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/Shri Falee Bilimoria &For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

reference to "due date" in the second proviso to section 43B was to have the same meaning as provided in the explanation to section 36(1) (va). Parliament therefore, through this amendment, sought to provide for identity in treatment of the two kinds of payments: those made as contributions ... 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

Rajaram Shankarlal Sonagra, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1953/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

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

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

account of PF/ESIC made after the 3 Rajaram ShankarlalSonagra due date as prescribed under the relevant statutes, is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, by concluding as under: “52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer ... 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

Shri Siddhesh Kumar Gaur, Jodhpur vs. ADIT, CPC, ACIT, Circle-3, Bengaluru / Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 18/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances made by the learned assessing officer under section 143(1) making the disallowance under section 36(1)(va). 3. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the alternate plea that even if the employees contribution to PF/ESI is not allowable ... 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

The ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 210/IND/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit-1(1) M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Indore Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Midc, Vs. Chakan, Pune, Maharastra (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcb2304E Revenue By Shri Ankit Guttani & Yash Daga, Ars Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

Section 36(1)(va)

appeal: “The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of Rs.2,09,59,201/- under section 36(1)(va) while ignoring the legislative intent whereby the employer is required to deposit the employee's contribution by the date prescribed ... 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

Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 76/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalephoenix Poultry, Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1) 201, Ratan Colony, Jabalpur, Gorakhpur, Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur- 482001. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aajfp5811H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondentby : Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(1)And 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without considering the material fact that the appellant had made the entire payment before ... made by the appellant was also eligible for deduction under s.37(1) of the Act if at all is not allowed under section 36(1) (va). That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the fact that addition made

Arihant Automobile, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jabalpur

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

ITA 28/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalearihant Automobiles Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2) 984, Wright Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur-482002, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfa2701P Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(1)And 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

M/S Tarun Construction Company, Ward No.24, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Suratgarh vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 109/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

were not deposited within the due date as prescribed under the PF and ESI Act, disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The disallowances made in respective assessment years are to the tune of Rs.10,97,693/- and Rs.33,54,760/-. Contesting ... welfare of such employees” (emphasis supplied) 4. The deduction of the said income is provided in ‘Section 36 – Other deductions’ wherein section 36(1)(va)of the Act provides as under:- “36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt

M/S Tarun Construction Company, Ward No.24, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Suratgarh vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 108/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Siddhanth Ex - Servicemen Security Services, Vasco vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 90/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V. RaghavanFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani

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

deduction etc. were treated as income in the hands of the employer (assessee). Further, it held unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the 3 ITA No. 90/PAN/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 employee on or before

Shree Poly Films Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/ Assistent Commissione of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 124/VIZ/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.124/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Shree Poly Films Private Limited Vs. Dcit/Acit D.No.50-53-11/10 Circle-3(1) Revathi Vihar Apartment Visakhapatnam Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs3403K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

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

circumstances of the case the elarned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being late deposit of Employees contribution towards ESIC/EPF amounting Rs.4,19,770.00 which has been duly ... circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that amendments brought in Finance Act, 2021 in the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Thus, Explanation 2 and Explanation 5 in section 36(1)(va

Amaravathi Power Associates, Visakhapatanam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatanam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/VIZ/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.104/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Amaravathi Power Associates Vs. Dcit/Acit D.No.36-91-30, Ravindra Nagar Circle-3(1) Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aanfa4444M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

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

circumstances of the case the elarned Commissioner ouht to have appreciated that the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being late deposit of Employees contribution towards ESIC/EPF amounting Rs.14,77,226.00 which has been duly ... circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that amendments brought in Finance Act, 2021 in the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Thus, Explanation 2 and Explanation 5 in section 36(1)(va

Ask Wealth Advisors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1904/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1904/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ask Wealth Advisors Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Birla Aurora, 16 Level, 400020. Office Floor 9, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca9124M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shreyam B. Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 11.06.2022 For Ay. 2018-19. 2. This Is Second Round Before This Tribunal. It Is Noted That This Captioned Appeal Of Assessee Was Partly Allowed In The First Round By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30.09.2022. However, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 298/Mum/2023 In The Light Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Decision In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (448 Itr 518). Therefore, This Appeal Is Adjudicated Afresh. The Main Grievance Of Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee’S Contribution Made Towards Pf/Esi To The Tune Of Rs.12,18,871/-.

For Appellant: Shri Shreyam B. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4695/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ..... Respondent Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Respondent (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B Patel / Shri KiritFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Promise Manpoer Services Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(2), Delhi

ITA 302/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra[A.Y. 2018-19]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

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

made by DCIT,CPC on account of delayed payment of employees’ contributions to EPF & ESI by invoking the provision of Explanation 2 to Section 36 (1) (va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 both inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 but considering ... 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

Ultra Tech Engineers, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(3), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 1457/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Time Amounting To Rs.13,61,143/, Which Is Apparent From The Face Of Impugned Order Itself.

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S