“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)

Principle Security and Allied Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 280/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhprinciple Security & Vs. Circle 13(1)(2) Allied Services Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Limited, 707 Hubtown Floor, M.K. Road, Viva Shankar Wadi, New Marine Lines Western Express Mumbai – 400 020 Highway, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai – 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp2691A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rahul K. Hakani Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Nfac, Delhi Dated 29.12.2022 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Intimation Issued By The Id Ao Cpc Bangalore W'S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Erroneous / Without Jurisdiction Since Additions On Issues Where Two Views Are Possible Cannot Be Made. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,59,10,546/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esic Was Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return. 3. The Appellant Prays That The Adjustment Made In The Intimation Order U/S143(1) Of The Act May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Rahul K. HakaniFor Respondent: V.S. Mahajan

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

P a g e | 1 Principle Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Circle 13(1)(2) IN THE INCOME

Shri Ankurbhai Dhanjibhai Khatariya, Anjar-Kutch vs. The ITO-Ward-1, Gandhidham, Gandhidham-Kutch

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

ITA 155/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

whereby and whereunder the addition made to the tune of Rs. 2,52,982/- towards contribution to Provident Fund and ESI under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been confirmed. 2. We have heard the rival submission made by the respective parties and we have also perused ... assessee as to why the late deposit of P.F. amount to the tune of Rs. 2,52,982/- should not be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee upon which the assessee filed the details wherefrom it appears

Aglowmed Limited, Patna vs. ADIT(CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 95/PAT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

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

Ashirbad Infrastructure Ser & Faci Management Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 115/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(vi)

claimed deduction of such payment while computing its income. 9. Being of the view that the deduction claimed, being in violation of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the CPC disallowed the deduction claimed in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. Against the intimation issued ... contribution to PF and ESI were not remitted to the government account within the period prescribed under the relevant statutes governing such payment. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act makes it clear that in case employees contribution to PF and ESI are not paid within the due date prescribed

Rajendra Management Group, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-62(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1614/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Cit(A).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 234CSection 36(1)(va)

erred in the facts and in law in sustaining the addition/disallowances of Rs.90,64,370/- by holding that the amendment and explanation in section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act. 2021 is clarificatory in nature and thus it will not be applicable

M/S Jay Ambica Exim, Gandhidham vs. Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot

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

ITA 57/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh S. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, (Conducted through E-Court, Rajkot) BEFORE Ms

Krown Agro Foods Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-14(1) C.R. Building, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2384/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

have been made u/s 143(1) of the Act as the issue was debatable. Moreover, the amendment was made w.e.f. 1.4.2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. In 3 support of his contention the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements ... 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

M/S Manilal Stores, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2)(3), Surat

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

ITA 194/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) M/S Manilal Stores, I.T.O., 5, Kalpana Building, Galiara Sheri, Ward-2(2)(3), Vs. Bhagal, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Aaefm 0652 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 254(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Virtual hearing) M/s Manilal

M/S. Geekay Securities Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1842/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Geekay Securities Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle-3(1)(1) Services Private Limited 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, G-11, Tulsani Chambers, M.K. Marg, Free Press Journal Marg Mumbai- 400020 Nariman Point, Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccg1282D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram Respondent By : Smt. Anne Varghese Date Of Hearing 17.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Nfac, Delhi Dated 08.09.2021 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In The Circumstances & Facts Of Our Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Dcit, Cpc In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs.1,21,39,702/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Despite The Fact That The Said Amount Of Rs1,21,39,702/- Comprises Of Two Components, An Amount Of Rs.64,43,502/- Which Pertains To Employer'S Contribution To Provident Fund/Lwf & An Amount Of Rs.56,96,200/- Which Pertains To Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund / Lwf & Not Considering The Conclusive Evidence Submitted In Its Written Submission & Supporting Paper Book 2.. In The Circumstances & Facts Of Our Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld Dcit, Cpc In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs. 56,96,200/-

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Smt. Anne Varghese

Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

Finance Act, 2021 and considering the same to apply retrospectively which is in direct contravention of the law since the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 438 are applicable w.e.f. 01/04/2021 and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred not to consider the insertion ... explanation to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B under Finance Act, 2021 as clarificatory in nature and the law to be applied retrospectively. 7. The appellant crave leave to add, delete or substantiate any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. The fact in brief that appeal

Jagbir Singh Tewatia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2205/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 34Section 36Section 4Section 43B

deposit of employee contribution within due date of relevant act without appreciating the fact and law that the due date referred to section 36(1 )(va) must be read with section 43B of the Act, wherein it has been provided that if 2 the assessee has made the payment before ... 36(l)(va) of the Act regarding delayed payment of employee contribution to PF and ESI by applying the amended provisions of section 36(1 )(va) and 43B of the Act retrospectively without appreciating the facts and law that such amendment brought into the statute by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f

Praveen Madhuarrao Satwasker, Indore vs. The ITO 1(2), Indore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 340/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Praveen Madhukarrao V. The Deputy Satwaskar Commissioner Of Income 1159, Sudama Nagar Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Indore Pan-Ajsps7468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .04.2023

For Appellant: Shri Soumya Bumb, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

belated payment to ESI and EPF towards Praveen Madhukarrao Satwasker ITA No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years. 2017-18 & 2018-19 employees contribution under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 of Rs.577911/- & Rs. 18,11,093/- respectively. The assessee ... having been deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va). In order to provide certainty, the revenue has made both the sections i.e. Sec 36(1)(va) and Sec.43B

Praveen Madhuarrao Satwasker, Indore vs. The ITO 1(2), Indore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 339/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Soumya Bumb, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Modern Laborataries Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 113/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Modern Laboratories V. The Deputy 45-D2, Sanwer Road, Commissioner Of Income Indore Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Pan-Aacfm 5920 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2023

For Appellant: Shri Soumya Bumb, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

while processing the return of income made the addition on account of belated payment to ESI and EPF towards employees contribution under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act of Rs.1,99,233/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before ... having been deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va). In order to provide certainty, the revenue has made both the sections i.e. Sec 36(1)(va) and Sec.43B

Kay Switcgears India Private Limited, Kapurthala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 24/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

year and Rs.71,818/- on 18.04.2018 related to EPF payable. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with explanation to section 36(1)(va) and 43B and confirmed the addition amount of Rs.4,87,990/- (Rs.4,16,169/- (+) Rs.71,818/-). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ... taken the following grounds on basis of the explanation of section 36(1)(va) and 43B which was observed in retrospectively and request for application in legal way. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld.AO. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. The assessee was called

Ess Ess Kay Engineering Compay Private Limited, Kapurthala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 23/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M. K Hotel & Resorts Limited, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 14/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Acro Hr Solutions India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1685/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Rohtagi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

considering the due dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have ... been allowed as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act when the payment was made beyond the relevant due date under the respective acts. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and later the Gujarat High Court dismissed the challenge against this order of AO. In appeal, the court

Shri Sachin Kapur, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 (2), Jalandhar

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 261/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

discipline besides being contemptuous and hence unsustainable per se. 3. That the Id.CIT(A)/NFAC, further erred to hold that amendments made in section 36(1 )(va) and 43B , by the Finance Act, 2021, being clarificatory, had retrospective effect, to disallow the assessee’s claim under dispute. I.T.A. Nos.261&253/Asr/2022 ... year and Rs.71,818/- on 18.04.2018 related to EPF payable. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with explanation to section 36(1)(va) and 43B and confirmed the addition amount of Rs.4,87,990/- (Rs.4,16,169/- (+) Rs.71,818/-). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

M/S. Ramco Engg Works, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (1), Jalandhar

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 253/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Smt Pushplata Chandrawat, Indore vs. The DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 180/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Pushplata Chandrawat, V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. House No. 34-Bg, Scheme No. 74-C, Vijay Nagar, Indore Pan-Adapc8144L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023

For Appellant: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)

appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without considering the material fact that the appellant had made the entire payment before ... appellants income on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without considering the material fact that the appellant had made the entire payment before