← 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)

Parminder Kumar, Sonepat vs. ITO, Ward-3, Sonepat

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2981/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. SrFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. Sr
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43

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

DCIT, Circle 7(1), New Delhi vs. Eagle Hunter Solution Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2150/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vagish Kumar (On behalf of assessee)For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(assessee)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 ... virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character

M/S Rana Iron & Power Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. DCIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 3619/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL

M/S. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The ACIT, Cir.-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 166/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 166/Rjt/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner 202, Arpan Complex, Kalawad Vs Of Income-Tax, Road, Opp. Swami Narayan Circle-2(1), Temple, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot Pan : Aabcc 8197 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40a

Rs.10,55,74,935/- upon making M/s. Classic Network Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT AY : 2013-14 2 an addition of Rs.28,080/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the late payment of PF. Subsequently, a revision order dated 22.03.2018 was passed by the learned PCIT invoking provisions

K A Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Icome Tax Department -CPC-Bagalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 1325/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthym.A No.159/Mum/2023 [ Arising Out Of Ita No.1325/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2019-20)]

For Appellant: Shri A.N.ShahFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच ”, मुंबई "ी बी.आर बा"करण, लेखाकार सद"य एवं "ी "वकास अव"थी

Laxman Nainani, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

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

ITA 21/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

made the disallowance by holding that the employees contribution towards PF/ESI is governed by the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act and not by the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. Thus the AO made an addition of Rs.13 ... 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 496/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

Asst. Year 2018-19. Accordingly, we decline to adjudicate this ground. 5. Ground No. 6 relates to double disallowance of expenditure under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has already deleted the double disallowance. In view of the above, this ... Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 7. Ground No. 5 is related to claim of double disallowance expenditure claimed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Learned AR submitted that 3 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs.60,084/- under section

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 495/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

Asst. Year 2018-19. Accordingly, we decline to adjudicate this ground. 5. Ground No. 6 relates to double disallowance of expenditure under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has already deleted the double disallowance. In view of the above, this ... Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 7. Ground No. 5 is related to claim of double disallowance expenditure claimed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Learned AR submitted that 3 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs.60,084/- under section

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 494/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

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

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

Asst. Year 2018-19. Accordingly, we decline to adjudicate this ground. 5. Ground No. 6 relates to double disallowance of expenditure under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has already deleted the double disallowance. In view of the above, this ... Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 7. Ground No. 5 is related to claim of double disallowance expenditure claimed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Learned AR submitted that 3 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs.60,084/- under section

Dilip Construction Company, Balod vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 78/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.78/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Construction Company Main Road, New Market, Dalli Rajhara, Balod (C.G.)-491 228 Pan : Aadfd9426A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

under the EPF Act, 1952 is to be construed as a payment made on or before the due date within the meaning of section 36(1)(va) of the Act? 11. Before proceeding any further, I may herein observe that the grace/extended period of 5 days that was available ... making respective payments was duly available to the assessee during the year under consideration. 12. As can be gathered from “Explanation 1” to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the term “due date” has been explained as under: “[Explanation 1].—For the purposes of this clause, "due date" means

Pradman Engineering Services P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 91/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Assessment Year: 2019-20) the Act keeping in view the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with Section 2(24)(x), Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act. Brief facts of the case common to all appeals are that the Assessee 3. had claimed deduction ... deduction claimed by the Assessee was disallowed by placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The issue travelled to CIT(A) in appeal. However, the CIT(A) was 4. not inclined to grant any relief and dismissed

Svatantra Microfin Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore

ITA 872/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

claimed by the assessee on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution of Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) (under section 36(1)(va) of the Act.) 3. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed ... deposited the employees’ contribution of PF & ESIC beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant Act the same is not allowable deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts the Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned order passed

Odex India Solutions P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 147/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Assessment Year: 2019-20) the Act keeping in view the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with Section 2(24)(x), Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act. Brief facts of the case common to all appeals are that the Assessee 3. had claimed deduction ... deduction claimed by the Assessee was disallowed by placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The issue travelled to CIT(A) in appeal. However, the CIT(A) was 4. not inclined to grant any relief and dismissed

Sanjay Suganchand Lodha, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengluru

ITA 56/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Sanjay Suganchand Asst. Director Of Income Lodha, Tax, Cpc Lodha Estate, Centralized Processing Behind Mittal Industrial Vs. Centre, Estate Building No.5, Income Tax Department, Marol Naka, Bengaluru-560 500 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaapl7043G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

comes to 3 Shri Sanjay Suganchand Lodha Rs.9,41,527/- due to delayed payment on account of employees’ share of PF & ESIC under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed ... made delayed payment of employees’ contribution on account of PF & ESIC after due date prescribed under the Act which was disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing of the return

Creative Textile Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 409/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Creative Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cpc, 212, Cama Indl. Esate, Sun Post Box No. -1 Electronic Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Vs. City Post Office, Mumbai-400013. Karnataka-560 100. Pan No. Aaacc 5458 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil Hirawat Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Joseph Leslie & Company LLP, Mumbai vs. Circle 22(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 297/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Joseph Leslie & Company Llp, Circle 22(1), 3Rd Floor, Leslico House, Piramal Chamber, Vs. Bhavani Shankar Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aahfj 7149 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 2Section 36Section 43B

case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) fails to appreciate fact that amendment by Finance Act 2021 in section 36(1 )(va) is prospective in nature & not retrospective. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate various judicial pronouncement including CIT Vs GhatgePatil Transports ... Supreme Court, held that employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC etc deposited after due date under relevant Acts is not allowable in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, therefore, respectfully following the same, the claim of deduction of PF/ESIC of Rs. 4,34,236/- deposited after due date under

Apcer Life Sciences India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 2882/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Apcer Life Sciences India Limited Assessing Officer G-040, Vikas Centre, 104, S V Road, National E-Assessment Centre, Vs. Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 Delhi

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Apcer

Liberty Oil Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Thane

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

ITA 212/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Liberty Oil Mills Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-3, 1-D Wing, Amerchand Income Tax Office, Qureshi Vs. Mansion, Madam Cama Mansion, Gokhale Road, Road, Colaba, Thane-400602 Mumbai-400039. Pan No. Aaacl 0888 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gyaneshwar Kataram Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Gyaneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

since the is in direct contravention of the law since the is in direct contravention of the law since the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section ... insertion of explanation to erred not to consider the insertion of explanation to erred not to consider the insertion of explanation to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B under Finance Act, section 36(1)(va) and section 43B under Finance Act, section 36(1)(va) and section 43B under

Home First Finance Company India Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC) & DCIT, Circle 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2109/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2109/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Home First Finance बिधम/ Acit, Cpc (Respondent Company India Limited No.1) Vs. 511, Acme Plaza 136, Dcit, Circle-10(1)(1), Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai (Respondent Andheri East-400059. No.2) 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch3317E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pratik Shah Revenue By: Dr. Samuel Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 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 27.06.2022 For Ay. 2019-20. 2. Even Though, We Had Allowed The Appeal Vide Order Dated 28.09.2022, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 209/Mum/2023. The Only Issue Is Regarding The Disallowance Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) Regarding Employee’S Contribution Towards Pf/Esi To The Tune Of Rs.42,34,050/-. 3. We Have Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Records. The Cpc Banglore Processed The Return Of Income U/S 143(1) Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Made Adjustment Of Rs.42,34,050/- U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act For Late Deposit Of Employee’S Contribution To Epf/Esic Beyond The Due Date As Prescribed In The Specified Act (Pf/Esic Acts). The Assessee Has Referred The Decision Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case

For Appellant: Shri Pratik ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Gulermak-Tpl Pune Metro Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru, Karanataka

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1979/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Darshan KoikarFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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