← 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)

Sangita Khanna, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 546/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 2(24)(x)Section 34Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1 )(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously ... prescribed time - by way of contribution of the employees’ share to their credit with the relevant fund 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

Ashok Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 186/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

PF/ESI, however, the assessee had claimed deduction of such payment. 4. Being of the view that the deduction claimed is not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act, the CPC made an adjustment to the income of the assessee by disallowing ... under the relevant statutes governing such payment, the amount in question has to be treated as income of the assessee in terms of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance has to be upheld. In so far as the contention

ITO, Ward-5, Rohtak vs. Rajbir L/H Shri Rajesh, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 2576/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

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

correct in holding that employees contribution to PF are governed by the provisions of Section 43B and not by Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. The short issue in this case is that as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Gujarat Mitra Private Limited, Surat vs. Asstt. Director Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

ITA 33/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32 & 33/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Mitra Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Ward No.10, Soni Faliya, Chowk Centralized Processing Center, Vs. Bazar, Surat-395003 Bangalore-560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 2528 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Eresh S.Dalal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36

held 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, what ... 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

Gujarat Mitra Private Limited, Surat vs. Asstt. Director Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

ITA 32/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32 & 33/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Mitra Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Ward No.10, Soni Faliya, Chowk Centralized Processing Center, Vs. Bazar, Surat-395003 Bangalore-560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 2528 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Eresh S.Dalal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36

held 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, what ... 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

Bihani Constructions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 19/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.19/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Bihani Constructions (P) Ltd. 64/167, Heera Path, VT Road Mansarovar, Jaipur 302 020 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 4(1) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAECB 8359 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’Page 6” The scope of the 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 assessee is entitled to deduction in respect ... especially when such sum is admittedly, a sum received by the assessee/ employer from his employee. Therefore, for considering such question, application of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation would only defect the object and scope

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 350/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

contribution of employees should have been deposited as per dates prescribed in ESI/PF Act. Thus, in terms of provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the above sum is liable to be disallowed and added back to the total ... Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. 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 applied

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

contribution of employees should have been deposited as per dates prescribed in ESI/PF Act. Thus, in terms of provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the above sum is liable to be disallowed and added back to the total ... Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. 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 applied

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 200/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

contribution of employees should have been deposited as per dates prescribed in ESI/PF Act. Thus, in terms of provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the above sum is liable to be disallowed and added back to the total ... Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. 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 applied

M/S Guruji Infrastruture Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 343/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.343/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2020-21) M/S. Guruji Infrastructure बिधम/ Adit, Cpc Pvt. Ltd Banglore. Vs. 33, Plot 1088 Suraj Plaza, ‘A’ Wing, Chandulal Park, Station Rd Bhayandar (W), Thane-401101. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecg3499G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2023 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 19.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Action Of The Cpc Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Disallowing Rs.1,47,39,619/- Claimed Towards Employees Contribution Towards Provident Fund/Esic. 3. Fact In Brief Are That The Assessee Company Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.02.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,93,38,870/-. & Thereafter, It Received Intimation Dated 23.012.2021 From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Wherein An Amount Of Rs.1,47,39,619/- Was Disallowed On Account Of Late Deposit Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esic In The Relevant Funds Within

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

attention to column no. 20(b) item no. 81 (details of contribution received for contribution of various funds as recorded to in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act) wherein she drew our attention to item no. 81 wherein contributions were purportedly made on 15.12.2019 of an amount of Rs.1

The Master Polishers, Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Master Polishers, Assistant Director Of Income S-02, Suchita Chs Ltd., Kalina Tax, Cpc, Bangalore, Vs. Church Cross Road, Santacruz 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. East, 48/1 48/2, Mumbai-400029. Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Rd, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 100. Pan No. Aahft 5749 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil Hirawat, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Hirawat, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

before 7th th of May 2019. The Ld. Counsel referred to the 19. The Ld. Counsel referred to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act and submitted that provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act and submitted that provisions of section 36(1)(va

Wanbury Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 109/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No. 109/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Wanbury Limited बिधम / Adit, Cpc 10Th Floor, Section 30- 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Vs. No 48/1 48/2, A Bsel Tech Park, B Beratenaagrahareabegur, Wing, Opp. Vashi Hosur Rd, Uttarahallihobli, Railway Station, Vashi Bengaluru 560100 Mumbai 400705 स्थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp5939P (अपीलाथी .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 30Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

M/S. Super Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1949/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 1949 & 1950/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-2020 M/S Super Tiles & Marbles National Faceless Appeal Pvt. Ltd, Centre (Nfac) Vs. 904 Marathon Icon, Opposite Mararshi Karve Road, New Peninsula Corporate Park, Off Marine Lines, Churchgate, Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel-West, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacs 9361 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raman Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Raman Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 14Section 43B

circumstances and following the clarificatory amendments made by the Finance Ac amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to section t, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B, the contentions made in the 36(1)(va) and section 43B, the contentions made in the 36(1)(va ... deposing of employee's made by AQ, CPC for not deposing of employee's contribution to the PF and ESIC covered under section 36(1)(va) contribution to the PF and ESIC covered under section 36(1)(va) contribution to the PF and ESIC covered under section 36(1)(va

Patwari Steels Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-2, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 58/PAT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various ... 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

Prime Comfort Porducts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

PF/ESI, however, the assessee had claimed deduction of such payment. 4. Being of the view that the deduction claimed is not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act, the CPC made an adjustment to the income of the assessee by disallowing ... under the relevant statute governing such payments, the amount in question has to be treated as income of the assessee in terms of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance has to be upheld. In so far as the contention

M/S. Karnail Singh & Company, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by the assessee." vi. The scope and effect of the newly inserted Section 36(1)(va) and the newly inserted provisos to Section 43B of the IT Act were elaborated in a Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter, “CBDT”) circular ... employee's account in the relevant fund under the provisions of any law or term of contract of service or otherwise [Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Finance Act]).” 5.3. The appellant has relied upon the Judgment of Jurisdictional High-Court in CIT Faridabad Vs Lakhani Rubber Udyog

M/S. Karnail Singh & Company, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 25/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by the assessee." vi. The scope and effect of the newly inserted Section 36(1)(va) and the newly inserted provisos to Section 43B of the IT Act were elaborated in a Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter, “CBDT”) circular ... employee's account in the relevant fund under the provisions of any law or term of contract of service or otherwise [Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Finance Act]).” 5.3. The appellant has relied upon the Judgment of Jurisdictional High-Court in CIT Faridabad Vs Lakhani Rubber Udyog

S.J.Metal Industries, Mumbai vs. Jao WD 21(3) (2), CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2013/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhs.J.Metal Industries Vs. Central Processing Centre, Ground Floor, Jain Estate Bangalore, Jakaria Road, Judicial Assessing Officer: Malad (W) Ward 21(3)(2) Mumbai – 400 064 1St Floor, Prestige Apha No. 48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Rd, Uttaranhalli Hobli Bengaluru Karnataka – 560100 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aatfs6124J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Bhupendra Shah Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

P a g e | 1 S.J. Metal Industries Vs. CPC, Banglore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Sparrow Security Services, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jammu

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

ITA 40/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 36Section 43B

being segregated from the information tabulated in para no ‘b’ above and the same is only covered as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va). The late deposit of employee’s contribution to PF and ESI works out to Rs. 1079120/- as per the following details: PF Month Date

Flourtech Engineers Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-1, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2201/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C.M Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshflourtech Engiiners Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No.-182, Sector-24, Circle-1, Fardiabad, Haryana 121005 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacf4904H

For Appellant: Ms. Jaya (Intern)For Respondent: Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 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