“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)

ITO Ward5(1), Delhi vs. Broad Ways Security and Detective Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

Accordingly, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed barred by CBDT

ITA 2707/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2707/Del/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 Ito, Vs. M/S. Broad Ways Security & Ward 5(1), Detective Pvt. Ltd. Delhi 48A, Dda Flats, Shahpurjat, New Delhi Pan : Aaacb5053F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 253Section 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)

merely dealt with the issue of delayed deposited ESI and PF contributions, as a valid deduction, in terms of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. No question of validity of any provision of the Act was disputed by assessee so as to be decided against the Revenue

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bhatapara, Bhatapara

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 109/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.109/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Bayps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Khapradih, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

Audit Report clearly reveals the "Details of the contribution received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va)". The columns in the table show the 'Due date of payment' and The actual date of payment to the concerned authorities' for the contribution made ... delay/violation in making payment of employees' contribution of PF and ESI deposit as per PF Act and ESI Act and applicability of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The employees contribution of PF and ESI being an expenditure item claimed 4 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Vs. ITO, Khapradih, Bhatapara

Anand Infracon, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed regarding our observations above

ITA 100/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.100/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anand Infracon 502, Dhebar Arcade, Near Kundan Palace, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aatfm4011A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 4(7)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Insha Exports (Registered Firm), Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 843/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 843/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Insha Exports, Vs Income Tax Officer, 33/9, Dlf Industrial Area, Phase-1, Ward-29(1), Faridabad-121003 Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfi9589F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Manish Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 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 with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have ... been allowed as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act when the payment was made beyond the relevant due date under the respective acts. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and later the Gujarat High Court dismissed the challenge against this order of AO. In appeal, the court

Indu Bala Saini, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 199/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 199/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Indu Bala Saini, Vs Income Tax Officer, 182/3E, Faridabad, Ward-1(3), Haryana Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adzps5766K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

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

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 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 2 Indu Bala Saini 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

Amar Udyog, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad

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

ITA 1573/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1573/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Amar Udyog, Vs Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 76, Sector-25, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffa0542C Assessee By : Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43

Vishwaranjan Prasad Singh, Bhopal vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 24/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivishwaranjan Prasad Singh Dcit-Cpc Prop World Wide Security Org, Bangalore Vs. H 203, Baghmugalia Extension Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Acpps 7520Q Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2023

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

could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously ... prescribed time - by way of contribution of the employees' share to their credit with the relevant fund 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

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh, Mumbai vs. NFAC- DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1703/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chougule, DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(via)

amendments in to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, 89, inserting inserting Section 36(1)(va) and and simultaneously simultaneously inserting the second proviso of inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was , its intention ... deduction credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va) Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this ). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employer distinction

ACIT, Circle 10(1), New Delhi vs. M/S. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1985/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Rajani, Sr. DR

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

date in the circumstances when the employees contribution is allowed only on payment made on or before due date as prescribed in section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds ... High Courts principally relied upon omission of the second proviso to section 43B(b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with section 36(1)(va) with its Explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated

Kavitha Suvvari, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 214/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

addition of Rs. 53,82,670/- made by the Ld. AO for not depositing of employees contribution to the PF covered under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act but paid to the respective funds after the due dates as specified by Rules of the relevant ... order by observing as under: “7. Under these circumstances and following the clarificatory amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B, the contentions made in the submissions are not found acceptable and the additions of Rs. 53,82,670/- made

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 1702/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledipen Kumarpal Parekh Vs. Assessing Officer, 603, Patel Niwas, Sainath Nfac, New Delhi Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 4000064. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp6112D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashwin Kashinath.Ar Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Kashinath.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Veena.DR

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

reported to be ‘due date’ in column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression ‘due date’ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that ... just a factual report about the fact of payments and the fact of the due date as per the Explanation to Section 36(1)(va). This due date, however, has not been found to be decisive in the light of the law laid down by Dipen Kumarpal Parekh., Mumbai

M/S. Intellect Bizware Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1935/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Employees’ contribution on account of PF/ESIC made after the 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

Tina Kalra, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-45(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2931/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatasstt. Yr: 2020-21

Section 2(24)(x)Section 34Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 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

Smt. Trushaba C. Manek L/H. of Late. Shri Chandrasinh P. Manek (Properitor of Dwarkesh Enterprise), Okha, Dist. Jamnagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Roy(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Trushaba C. Manek, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Chandrasinh P. Income-Tax, Manek (Prop. Of Dwarkesh Jamnagar Enterprise), Bazar Lane, Raghunath Road, Okha, Gujarat Pan : Aijpm 0949 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jamnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 30.03.2021, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. Hon'Ble Pr. Cit Had Issued Notice U/S. 263 In The Name Of Deceased Person, Therefore Notice Issued U/S. 263 Is Not Valid In The Eyes Of Law & Hence Required To Be Quashed. 2. Hon'Ble Pr. Cit, Jamnagar Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Invoking His Revisionary Powers U/S. 263 Without Having Valid Jurisdiction For Addition Of Income U/S. 2(24)(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) Of The Act For Epf For Rs. 8,35,800/- Whereas Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

that the employees’ contribution of EPF deposited late by the assessee were not disallowed by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that this issue was not within the purview

D V Properties Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 121/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) D. V. Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit - 1, 748-749, Golden Plaza Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

Total 43433/- As per provision of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the contribution paid after the due date is not eligible for deduction. The same is to be disallowed. But as per the computation of income available in ITBA portal, for A.Y. 2018-19, it was noticed

Shalu Dyeing Ptg Mills Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Surat

ITA 118/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shalu Dyeing Ptg Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 262 G.I.D.C Industrial Estate, Pandesara, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat – 394221. Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs8213P Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 15/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68Section 69C

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

Reliance Fire Brigade Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1631/MUM/2021[F.Y.2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

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

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act 3. Erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing 16,32,527/- under section 36(1)(va) of Act on the basis that there has been delay in depositing of employees' contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) as reported ... employees' contribution towards PF 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

Ess Ess Kay Engineering Company Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -4, Jalandhar

In the result, the appellant’s appeal is Dismissed

ITA 143/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.143/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

assessee filed the return u/s 139(1) thereafter return was processed u/s 143(1) and the disallowance was made u/s 43B and section 36(1)(va) for delay payments of ESI & PF. The case was further assessed and order was passed u/s 143(3). The same addition was added ... EPF/ESI etc. will only be available if the amount is deposited before the due dates prescribed in the concerned statutes as specified in Section 36(1 )(va) of the Act and NOT before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act as per Section

Sadanand Champakrao Manekar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Begaluru

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

ITA 1516/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesadanand Champak Rao Vs. Dcit, Cpc Manekar Bangalore.-560500 C/O Sanjay Vhanbatte & Compnay, Cts No. 245, C/1, First Floor, Mahalaxmi Bank Bldg, Near Kelavkar Hospital Tarabai Park, Mumbai – 416003. Pan/Gir No. : Acepm7834N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhavesh Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rp Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Sadanand Champakrao Manekar, Mumbai. 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru By Way Of Adjustment U/S 143(1)(A) In Respect Of Employees' Contribution To Provident Fund & Esic Payment Of Rs. 14,21,489/- As Not Being Allowable As Deduction Under Section 36(1)(Va) As The Contribution Has Been Deposited With The Respective Authority After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Law. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That Such Action Of The Dcit Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of The Adjustments Prescribed Under Section 143(1)(A). The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter, Modify, Delete Or Add A New Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Veena.DR

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

respect of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC payment of Rs. 14,21,489/- as not being allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) as the contribution has been deposited with the respective authority after the due date as provided under the respective law. 2. On the facts ... reported to be ‘due date’ in column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression ‘due date’ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that

S T I India Ltd., Indore vs. ACIT-5(1), Indore

Appeals are disposed of as under:

ITA 850/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

first appeal, the CIT(A) reversed AO’s action by following certain ruling of ITAT and High Court wherein it was held that section 36(1)(va) is to be read with section 43B and accordingly if the relevant sum is paid upto due date u/s 139(1) for filing ... contributions. The decision of Hon’ble Apex Court is the law of land and applies retrospectively w.e.f. the date when the provision of section 36(1)(va) came into statute. Therefore, Ld. DR claimed that the disallowance made by AO deserves to be upheld and CIT(A)’s action deserves