← 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)

Darshan Creation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst DCIT, CPC Bangaluru, Bangaluru

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

ITA 2345/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledarshan Creation Pvt Ltd Vs. Asst. Dcit,Cpc A/082, Shantivan Bldg Bangalore, Eksar Village Devidas Karnataka-560500 Lane, Borivali (W) Mumbai-400103. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd6658D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jeet Kamdar.Ar Respondent By : Mr.T. Shankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter ‘The Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Jeet Kamdar.ARFor Respondent: Mr.T. Shankar.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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 Hon'ble Courts above

Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shreekala Pardeshi, Sr.DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 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. For completeness and ready reference, the conclusion drawn by the Hon’ble apex court qua delayed payment towards the Employees ... 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

Dinesh Industrial Corporation, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-5(1)(1), Gautam Buddha Nagar

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

ITA 45/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramanand Roy, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

inform CPC portal. 3. The Ld. Officer Circle 5(1)(1), erred in law in invoking the provision for disallowing the claim under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and disallow the claim. Expenses an amount of Rs.21,94,886/- and considering the same ... particularly where the auditor in the Tax Audit Report has 45/Del/2023 3 never indicated any disallowance to be carried out under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act as required under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue on its part

College Shoes, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3035/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediai.T.A. No.3035/Del/2022 Assessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

circumstances of the appellant's case in proposing and sustaining an addition of the appellant amounting to INR 23,73,348/ under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3035/Del/2022 2 2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO)(CPC) and consequently the Ld National Faceless Assessment Centre ... matter was calling for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the imposed disallowance of Rs. 23,73,348/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been made on the basis of wrong information provided in the Tax Audit Report. The Tax Auditor inadvertently copied

Bimla Thakur, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2963/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediai.T.A. No.2963/Del/2022 Assessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P.P. Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1) of the Act, particularly where the auditor in the Tax Audit Report has never indicated any disallowance to be carried out under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act as required under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 2963/Del/2022 ... merit in such plea that the belated deposit of employees contributions to PF/ESIC governed under Section 36(1)(va) is also simultaneously amenable to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of the provision, Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure which is not in the nature

Certitude, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-30(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 99/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1) of the Act, particularly where the auditor in the Tax Audit Report has never indicated any disallowance to be carried out under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act as required under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 4. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue

Gopi Mani Kuttan, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Atul Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

particularly where the auditor in the Tax Audit Report has never indicated any disallowance to be carried out under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act as required under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 4. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue on its part, contended that ... merit in such plea that the belated deposit of employees contributions to PF/ESIC governed under Section 36(1)(va) is also simultaneously amenable to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of the provision, Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure which is not in the nature

Dhanya Promoters Private Limited, Delhi vs. Central Circle-13, Delhi

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

ITA 258/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)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

Force Tech Security (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2143/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH

Transcon Freight System Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 85/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 2(24)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 ... towards employee’s contribution to P.F. / E.S.I.C. after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute is not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. On the basis of this decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Revenue has preferred the present

Sharda Silicate & Chemical Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 211/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
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 ... Sharda Silicate & Chemical Industries M.A. no.96/Mum./2023 and ITA no.211/Mum./2022 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

M/S. Makhija Electromechanical Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1635/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 2(24)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 ... account of alleged delay in payment of P.F. / E.S.I.C. under M/s. Makhija Electromechanical Pvt. Ltd. M.A. no.31/Mum./2023 and ITA no.1635/Mum./2021 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 rendered

Reuters India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while ground no

ITA 9045/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 2(24)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 ground no.22, raised in assessee‟s appeal, was regarding the disallowance of employees‟ contribution to superannuation fund 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 the decision

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd., Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 24/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

before the due date specified u/s.139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not allowable in view of provision of section 36(1)(va) in spite of the fact that said contribution was paid on 16.04.2018 because on the due date of payment ... before the due date specified u/s.139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not allowable in view of provision of section 36(1)(va) in spite of the fact that said contribution was paid on 23.03.2018 as against due date of 21.03.2018 due to some unavoidable circumstances

The Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

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

ITA 16/BIL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

before the due date specified u/s.139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not allowable in view of provision of section 36(1)(va) in spite of the fact that said contribution was paid on 16.04.2018 because on the due date of payment ... before the due date specified u/s.139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not allowable in view of provision of section 36(1)(va) in spite of the fact that said contribution was paid on 23.03.2018 as against due date of 21.03.2018 due to some unavoidable circumstances

Dr Deshmukh Mother and Child Care, Ujjain vs. PCIT-1, Indore

ITA 101/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Dr. Deshmukh Mother & Pr. Cit-I, Child Care, Indore बनाम/ 27, Nirman Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aahfd3407H Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Negi, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,इंदौर"ायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Danish Health Care P Ltd, Ujjain vs. Pr CIT -1, Indore

ITA 100/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Danish Health Care Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76/27, Maxi Road, Industrial Area, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaecd5554F Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Negi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

employee welfare funds (PF/ESI) by the due dates but the AO has not made any disallowance u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). Ld. AR fairly agreed that the assessee has not deposited employees’ contribution before due dates and in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme

May Fashions LLP, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2073/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2073/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) May Fashions Llp बिधम/ Cit(A)/Nfac Anup Anand Compartments New Delhi Vs. Plot No. 24-25 Marol Co- Op, Indl Estate Andhri Kurla Road, Sakinaka, Andheri, Mumbai-400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefm7603C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/06/2023 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, Delhi Dated 23.09.2021 For Ay. 2019-20. 2. It Is Noted That This Caption Appeal Was Allowed In The First Round By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 09.05.2022. However, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 338/Mum/2022 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.5,40,279/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, AM

Amba Tech Engineering, Bhiwadi vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)ADIT - CPC, Alwar

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

ITA 49/JPR/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 438

allowed as the ruling of decision of Hon'ble SC in case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd vs CIT and amendments to section 36(1)(va) and sec. 438 by the Finance Act, 2021 are not available at the time of processing of ITR u/s 143(1 ... deleted. 6. That the Id. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in holding that the amendments made to section 36(1)(va) and sec. 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 are retrospective in nature. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. Mustang Enterprises, Mum vs. ITO, Cir-20(1), Mum

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee is dismissed

ITA 71/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Mustang Enterprises Ito, Circle-20(1) 219 Milan Industrial Estate, Mumbai T J Marg, Cotton Green, Vs. Mumbai-400 033

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal Shah
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM