← 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)

I G International Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 146/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 142 to 146/Mum/2023 I.G.International Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, CC-1(3) IN THE

I G. International P Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 145/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 142 to 146/Mum/2023 I.G.International Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, CC-1(3) IN THE

I G International Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 144/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 142 to 146/Mum/2023 I.G.International Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, CC-1(3) IN THE

I G International Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 143/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 142 to 146/Mum/2023 I.G.International Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, CC-1(3) IN THE

I G International Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 142/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 142 to 146/Mum/2023 I.G.International Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, CC-1(3) IN THE

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1928/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2019-20
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

case and in law, the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,07,01,091 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act for the delay in crediting the employees' contribution received to Provident Fund. D) On the facts and the circumstances ... circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 (which provided for the disallowance of delayed deposit of the employees' contribution received to Provident Fund) was applicable from

Atc Precision Components Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1804/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaatc Precision Components Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd., Cpc B-1/5,Janak Puri Bangalore Delhi-110 058 Pan No. Aafca 2867 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.05.2023

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

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the addition under section 36(1)(va) of Rs.1,79,407/- on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution under the relevant act without considering the stated judgments where ... learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the addition under section 36(1)(va) of Rs.1,79,407/- although it was submitted that, second proviso to section 43B of the Act which ATC Precision Components Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT

Satpal Singh Sandhu, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 4/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 04/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cseps7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

contributions towards ESI & EPF by the assessee-employer, could have summarily been held by the A.O, as the assessee’s income under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act while processing his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act,.? 8. As is discernable from ... audit report only furnished details of the employees shares of contribution as referred to in Section 36(1)(va), i.e the respective amounts a/w. dates of deposit. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O merely on the basis of the aforesaid details provided by the auditor could

Avenue Supermarts Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 27/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Avenue Supermarts Limited Cit(Appeals) Orchard Avenue, Anjaneya Co-Op. Room No. 356, C. R. Building, Housing Society Ltd., I. P. Estate, New Delhi-110 002 Vs. Opp. Hiranandani Foundation School, Powai, Mumbai-400 076

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Baheti &For Respondent: 01.03.2023
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

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

Anibrain Digital Technologies Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Income Tax Dep., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

ITA 198/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleanibrain Digital Technologies V. Dcit Private Limited Centralized Processing Centre B1, 4Th Floor, Cerebrum It Park Income-Tax Department Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411014 Bangalore- Pan: Aafca6342K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Praveen Jain Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

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

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 ... income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated

Anang Pal Jawla, Haryana vs. Circle 1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 579/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2019-20 Anang Pal Jawla, Vs Ao, Advocate Vijay Kumar Gupta, Circle-1, Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad. Main Bazar, Faridabad, Haryana – 121 004. Pan: Aqapj1168Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Bhupendera Anant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.579/Del/2022 For Ay 2019-20 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1040963669(1) Dated 17.03.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 07.07.2020 By The Ld. Acit, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Since The Issue Is Already A Covered Issue, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal On Hearing The Ld. Dr & Based On Materials Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendera Anant, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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

Dhruv Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. CIT(A), Udaipur-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 86/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ao Who Ignored The Same.

For Appellant: Shri B.A. Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 154Section 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

Bhanu Parkash Bansal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward2(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 133/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (E written submission)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 5

will be applicable to the issue in the instant appeal 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 ... especially when such sum is admittedly, a sum received by the taxpayer/ employer from his employee. Therefore, for considering such question, application of Section 36(1)(va) red with Section 2(24)(x) alone in the proper course and other interpretation would only defect the object and scope of both

M/S Mantra Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 510/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2018-2019
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)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 438, 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

S Zhaveri Pharmakem Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

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

ITA 254/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S S Zhaveri Pr. Cit-8, Pharmakem Pvt. Ltd., The Asstt. Cit, Circle-8(2)(2), Vs. 109, Shiv Smruti Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chambers, 49, Dr. Annie Mumbai-400020. Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan No. Aajcs 0402 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Vasanti Patel Revenue By : Mihita Nair Sr Dr : Date Of Hearing 03/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Mihita Nair Sr DR
Section 202Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in failing to appreciate that amendments 3. The CIT (A) erred in failing to appreciate that amendments to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance to section 36(1 ... that the said amendments to section 2021 itself stated that the said amendments to section 2021 itself stated that the said amendments to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act will take effect from 1S 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act will take effect

M/S. Centrum Microcredit Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT Centralized Processsing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1602/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Centrum Microcredit Ltd., Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 801, Centrum House, Cpc, Bengaluru-560500. Vs. Vidyanangari, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. Pan No. Aafcn 3506 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ravikant S. Pathak Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant S. PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Employee's Employee's State State Insurance Insurance Corporation (SIC) aggregating to Rs.55,845/ Corporation (SIC) aggregating to Rs.55,845/- under section under section 36(1)(va) r.w. section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ) r.w. section 2(24)(x) of the Income ... erred in holding that the amendment made to (b) The CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature section 36(1)(va

Kamal Dixit, Haryana vs. AO Ward-2, Sonepat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 846/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Kamal Dixit, Vs Ao, 240, Vpo-Bhainsra Wali, Ward-2, Ballabgarh, Sonepat. Faridabad, Haryana – 121 004. Pan: Astpd3725G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.846/Del/2022 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1035026042(1) Dated 23.08.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 23.03.2020 By The Ld. Acit, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. At The Outset, We Find That The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Before Us Is Delayed By 189 Days. In View Of The Relaxation Provided By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Light Of Covid 19 Pandemic, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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. Sainik Intelligence & Security Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 255/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Sainik Intelligence & Security Pvt. Asst. Dit, Centralized Processing Ltd. Centre, Bangalore Shoop 25, Suraj Plaza, Chandulal Wadi, Vs. Station Road, Bhayander (W), Thane-401 101 Pan/Gir No. Aaics 5302 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Ms. Dinkle Haria Assessee By Revenue By : Shri A. N. Bhalekar : 02.05.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Respondent: Shri A. N. Bhalekar
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

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

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 94/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. RuniPal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

READY ROTI INDIA PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 1. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which provides that the definition of due dates as per section 43B is deemed never to have been ... utmost regard to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is submitted that it failed to take into consideration that Explanation to section 36(1)(va) nowhere provides that due date means the date by which employees contribution is to be deposited in the relevant fund under relevant statute

Ravi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 72/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Itr. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Of Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,995/- Being Double Addition Of Speculative Income.’’

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

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