← 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)

Mehara Eyetech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1684/MUM/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (Jm)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘B’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (JM

Babubhai Jagjivandas, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC) (ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2316/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Babubhai Jagjivandas, Asstt. Director Of Income 128 Vishnu Niketan, Prathna Tax (Cpc), Bangalore [Acit Samaj Road, New Charni Vs. 19(1), Mumbai.] Road, Matru Mandir, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 004. 400 007. Pan No. Aaafb 5829 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Suresh Periasamy, Dr : Date Of Hearing 29/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Suresh Periasamy, DR
Section 143(1)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

decision of non-jurisdictional High Court, relief should not be refused to assessee c) By disregarding the fact that the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021 is not retrospective as is recently held in the case of M/s Crescent Roadways Private Limited ... Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance deposited after the due date under the relevant Act. The Ld. CIT(A) in view of amendment to section 36(1)(va) confirmed the addition of Rs.5,43,802/-. Before us, in the grounds raised the assessee has challenged the decision

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Begaluru

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2057/MUM/2021[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

Mack Springs Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalluru

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

ITA 1884/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1884/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Mack Springs Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Adit Cpc, Bangaluru. 18 Khandelwal Mansion, Ac7(2)(1) Vs. Barrister Nath Paimarg, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Cotton Green, Mumbai- Floor, Bangaluru-560500. 400033, Maharashtra, India. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm8652J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Revenue By: Shri Prakash D. Chougule (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2023 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 Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.07.2021 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. It Is Noted That This Appeal Was Initially Disposed Off By This Tribunal On 09.05.2022 By Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee. However, The Same Have Been Recalled By This Tribunal On 13.04.2023 In The Light Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of M/S. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (448 Itr 518) (Sc). 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act Raising A Demand Of Rs.2,35,771/- By Making An Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.8,58,426/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On The Ground That The Employee’S Contributions To Provident Fund Was Remitted By Assessee After The Due Dates Prescribed

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prakash D. Chougule (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Shri Mahabir Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1829/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahabir Dyeing & Printing V. Dcit – 4(3)(1) Mills Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 649, 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan 510/511, Kakad Market, 306 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaacm5098H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., 2. The Assessee has challenged the disallowance of ₹.4,37,188/- being payment of Provident Fund and ESIC under section 36(1)(va) of Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 3. The Assessee in the return of income filed on 27.10.2018 had declared total income ... noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act, it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, section 36(1)(va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from 1-4-1988. Through the same amendment, by section 3(b), section 2(24) which

Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Adcir, CPC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

ITA 88/PAT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Contention – 3 An amending provision can certainly give guidance to interpretation of the existing old provisions. Accordingly, the application of rigour of section 36(1)(va) of the Act w.e.f. asst. yr. 2021-22 (as so held by various benches of Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal) by Finance ... even after recognizing the position of law as per section 36(1)(va) from beginning being similar to that now held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC), the base of Checkmate's case is changed

Shailender Narang, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 51(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 771/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Puri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

Rs.3,50,200/- made by CPC Bangalore in intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act on account of disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act towards belated payment to Employees’ PF/ESIC and Labour Welfare Fund under Section 43B of the Act. I.T.A. No.771/Del/2023 2 3. When ... Rs.23760/-‘ Assessee's audited accounts would prove that i. PF/ESI are not at all applicable to the assessee hence provisions of Section 36(1)(va) were squarely not attracted in assessee's case ii. Labour Welfare Fund shown as due u/s 43B of Income Tax Act is also not applicable

ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon vs. Bellsonica Auto Component Sh. India Private Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

ITA 1625/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Ms. Sonam Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1 ITA No. 1625/Del/2022 & C.O. No. 114/Del/2022 ACIT Vs. Bellsonica Auto Component IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH

Shri Shashikumar S Mishra, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch

ITA 99/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

Court has observed as follows: “30 Analysis and Conclusions The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions ... noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1)(va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various

Shri Shashikumar S Mishra, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch

ITA 98/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

Court has observed as follows: “30 Analysis and Conclusions The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions ... noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1)(va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various

Shri Shashikumar S Mishra, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch

ITA 97/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

Court has observed as follows: “30 Analysis and Conclusions The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions ... noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1)(va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various

Sun Enterprises, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.2(1)(1)/ Dy.CIT Central Processing Centre (CPC), Surat/Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 162/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sun Enterprises Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shed No.C1B/156, Ichhapore- Tax Central Processing Centre Vs. Bhatpore Industrial Estate, Hajira, (Cpc),Bengaluru-560100 Surat-394207 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aayfs 4971J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Shri Shashikumar S Mishra, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch

ITA 101/SRT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

Court has observed as follows: “30 Analysis and Conclusions The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions ... noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1)(va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various

Shri Shashikumar S Mishra, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch

ITA 100/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

Court has observed as follows: “30 Analysis and Conclusions The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions ... noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1)(va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various

Akar Auto Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 502/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Dilip & Co. (2018) 9 SCC (1). Ld. AR further claimed that the amendment in 4 I.T.A. No. 502/Mum/2023 Akar Auto Industries Limited section 36(1)(va) of the Act is perspective in nature, therefore judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Checkmate Services ... retrospectively and therefore as no application to the case in hand. 4.3 The Ld. AR further claimed as per explanation 1 inserted in section 36(1)(va), it has been clarified that for the purpose of its claim due date for the purpose of deposit of employee’s contribution

Yad Associates, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Circle 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 333/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.333/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Yad Associates बिधम/ Assessing Officer, Circle- 10, Daulat Mension, 17(3) Vs. Barrack Road, New Marine Maharshi Karve Rd, New Lines-400020. Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafy0039P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Hirawat Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.12.2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.92,627/- By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For Belated Remittance Of Pf/Esic U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Sunil Hirawat Drew Our Attention To The Chart (Infra) Which Shows (I) Month Of Salary (Ii) Date On Which Salary Paid (Iii) Employees Contribution To Esic (Iv) Due Date Of Esic Payment (V) Actual Date Of Esic Payment & Delay In Payment In Accordance To The Assessee. Likewise, The Assessee Has Also Given The Chart Of Provident Fund Which Is As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Year Ended 31st March, 20108 Assessment Year : 2018-2019 Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) A- ESIC Salary Month Date of which Employees Due Date of Actual date of Delay in Salary paid contribution to ESIC ESIC Payment ESIC

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Dec Property Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2667/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 2666 & 2667/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) Dcit Vs. Dec Property Management Circle – 7(1) (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1101, Plot No.D-9, Gopal Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi - 110034 Pan No. Aabcd 7231 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jaspal Sathi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 08.09.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

taxability of such income in the hands of the assessee. Once such an amount becomes income of the employer-assessee, then section 36(1)(va) comes into play for providing the deduction. This provision provides that: `(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of ITA Nos.2666 & 2667/Del/22 DCIT ... deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides that a deduction otherwise allowable

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Dec Property Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2666/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 2666 & 2667/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) Dcit Vs. Dec Property Management Circle – 7(1) (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1101, Plot No.D-9, Gopal Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi - 110034 Pan No. Aabcd 7231 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jaspal Sathi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 08.09.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

taxability of such income in the hands of the assessee. Once such an amount becomes income of the employer-assessee, then section 36(1)(va) comes into play for providing the deduction. This provision provides that: `(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of ITA Nos.2666 & 2667/Del/22 DCIT ... deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides that a deduction otherwise allowable

Vinod Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. AO Ward 71(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 233/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)

Rs.24,53,910 by the AO Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) on the ground that there was delay in deposit of employees contribution under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 disregarding the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Jurisdictional High Court and Various other High ... issue in the instant appeal for the earlier year also. It is also clear that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether the taxpayer is entitled to deduction

C & C Constructions Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1544/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 1543 & 1544/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) C & C Constructions Ltd. Vs. Dcit 74, Hemkunt Colony, Central Circle – 19 New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacc 4543 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sibtain Raza, A.R. Revenue By Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.04.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Assessment Year & The

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

addition of Rs.42,47,836/- on account of PF & ESI contribution of employees deposited after the due date as prescribed in explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act.” 6. Similar ground are also raised by assessee in ITA No.1544/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2014-15. 7. Before ... taxability of such income in the hands of the assessee. Once such an amount becomes income of the employer- assessee, then section 36(1)(va) comes into play for providing the deduction. This provision provides that: `(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which