← All Phrases

“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)

Srm Spinners Limited, Bhilwara vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 90/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotesrm Spinners Ltd., Vs. Cit(A) / Nfac Sukh Shanti, Sukh Delhi-110002. Shanti, Sabun Marg, Bhilwara – 311001, Rajasthan, Pan/Gir No. : Aascs1833L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit – Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 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 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Prerana choudhary
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Supreme Court reproduced above, the addition made on the basis of the appellant's own audit report by applying provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) is found to be valid and proper in fact and law. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances

ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Pinnacle Clothing Company, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 679/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

same for non-business purposes. 3. Rs.13,22,972/- on account of contribution to employees provident fund and employees State Insurance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. In CO No. 105/Del/2022, the assessee has also raised following grounds: “1. Rs.4,38,450/- on account ... travel expenses on ad-hoc basis. 2. Rs.6,59,078/- on account of contribution to employees provident fund and employees State Insurance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. The assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring income of Rs.7

DCIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Pinnacle Clothing Company, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5833/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

same for non-business purposes. 3. Rs.13,22,972/- on account of contribution to employees provident fund and employees State Insurance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. In CO No. 105/Del/2022, the assessee has also raised following grounds: “1. Rs.4,38,450/- on account ... travel expenses on ad-hoc basis. 2. Rs.6,59,078/- on account of contribution to employees provident fund and employees State Insurance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. The assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring income of Rs.7

DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi vs. Uk India Business Council India P.Ltd, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3249/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: filing of return replying on the judgment of jurisdiction High Court given in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL. Ltd. without appreciating the judgment given by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cooperation Circle- 3(2), WP No. 5264 of 2018 (Madras), CIT-2, vs. Gujrat State Road Transport Cooperation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and CTT vs. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Kerala) and CBDT's Circular No. 22/2

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

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 isto 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

Sajal Jhamb, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 394/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2020-21
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)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 isto 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

Choraria Industries Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 6(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 348/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediachoraria Industries Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. 533, Industrial Estate, Circle-6(1), Patparganj, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcc3258N Assessee By : Shri Suyash Nahata, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Suyash Nahata, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

where the assessee has complied with the obligation of payment towards employee's contribution before the due date, the deductions are allowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act as held in several judicial pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

Encotec Energy (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 152/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaencotec Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 90-A, Pocket 1, Mayur Vihar, Circle-7(1), Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacce1338E Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Ca Revenue By : Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 06.12.2022 for AY 2020-21 involving issue of disallowance of expenditure towards employees contribution to ESIC/PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are AO, CPC has made addition ... considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. “9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. for the proposed

Emerson Electric Company (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 555/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Srivastav
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

warranted The Appellant prays that the aforesaid addition be deleted. 7. Ground no. 7- Addition under provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act 1.75-77-735 INR On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in treating the contributions of the employees towards the provident ... raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to disallowance on account of the alleged delay in payment of Provident Fund (P.F) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act. 49. The learned AR, at the outset, agree that this issue is covered against the assessee

Inventys Research Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1999/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Heta ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 2(24)Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) upheld the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act due to delayed payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.C.). Therefore ... Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal was regarding the disallowance on account of alleged delay in payment of P.F./E.S.I.C. under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act. While deciding the aforesaid issue, the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal following its earlier decision

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

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

ITA 540/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaharbir Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O. Ca Mr Sahu, House No. Ward-1(4), 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Near Gurgaon Gd Goenka Public School, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afrpa3023P

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

where the assessee has complied with the obligation of payment towards employee's contribution before the due date, the deductions are allowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act as held in several judicial pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

Ge India Industrial Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, (OSD), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Presidenet & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ge India Industrial Private Vs. Acit, (Osd), Ltd., A-18, First Floor, Okhla New Delhi Ind. Area, Phase-2, Okhla Ind. Estates S.O. Tehkhand, South East Delhi, New Delhi Pan :Aaacg4901D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 251Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

Rs.754,11,59,870. The variation in the total income was due to the following two adjustments: i) Increase in disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act ; & Rs.17,905 ii) Increase in disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Rs.2,57,47,922 5. The assessee

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Jao Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

ITA 64/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Batps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Jao-Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Employees Contribution to ESI/PF paid before filing of return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Commissioner ... employer deposits the same after the due date prescribed under the relevant Provident Fund/ESI Act. The bare reading of section 36(1)(va) makes it clear that deduction is available only if such sum is credited by the employer to the employees' account in the relevant fund or funds

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1998/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “J” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (JM

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

neither made any query in this regard nor examined the case of disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. The FAO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) on 01.02.2021 (supra), without making any addition on this ... disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of 7 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, due to lack of enquiry and due to incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts, the assessment order is erroneous

R.K. Carriers India Private Limited, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2014-15 R.K. Carriers India Private The Acit, Limited, 4 Laxmi Nagar, Subcity V Circle-1, Centre Chouraha, Sector No. 8, S Udaipur (Raj.) Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Raj.)- 313001 Pan: Aadcr8681E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 29.08.2022 Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Passed By Acit, Circle-1, Udaipur For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Has Grossly Erred In Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 308827.00 Made On Account Of Delayed Statutory Payment Of Employee Contribution Of Pf As Per The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act, 1961 As Per His Convenience. Therefore, The Action Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Unwarranted, Against The Principles Of Natural Justice, Illegal & Unjustified & The Disallowance So Made & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Deleted. R.K. Carriers India Private Ltd. 2. That The Appellant Reserves His Rights To Add, To Alter Or To Modify Any Grounds Of The Appeal On Or Before Hearing Of The Same.”

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

confirming the disallowance of Rs. 308827.00 made on account of delayed statutory payment of employee contribution of PF as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 as per his convenience. Therefore, the action of the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is unwarranted, against

Aero Club, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-49(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2957/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Pradip Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh

Bec Projects Ltd., Bhilai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 06/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Bec Projects Limited 4/5, Industrial Estate, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan : Aaacb9275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 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

Dedha India Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 268/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

captioned appeal relates to Assessment Years 2019-20 involving issue of disallowance of expenditure towards employees contribution to ESIC/PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. I.T.A. No.268/Del/2023 2 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of man power supply and has filed the return ... considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. for the proposed

M/S Veejay Facility Management Pvt. Ltd, Panaji vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

hence the order is bad in law. 3) There have been various case decisions including by High Court holding that provision of section 36(1)(va) should be interpreted in the same way as that of section 43B and that delayed contribution of employees towards PF and ESI should ... Assessing Officer and CIT (appeals) have not followed these judgments. 4) The CIT (appeals) has erroneously interpreted that the amendment introduced in section 36(1)(va) by Finance Act, 2021 is retrospective in nature, ignoring the memorandum of object presented to the parliament at the time of introduction

Tuv Sud South Asia Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissoiner of Income Tax Appeals, Mumbai

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

ITA 282/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tuv Sud South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Cit, Nfac, 1, Tuv House, Off Saki Vihar Road, New Delhi Vs. Saki Naka, Mumbai – 400 072

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM