“Section 36(1)(va)”

Arvind, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

assessee, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) noticed that employees contribution to PF and ESI was not paid within the due date prescribed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, the deduction claimed by the assessee was disallowed. 7. Contesting the disallowance, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Sadakat Ali, Prop S P Enterprises, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Rs.1,51,020, being employees contribution to Provide Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI), paid beyond the due date prescribed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3 ITA No.1709/Del./2022 5. I have considered submissions of learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record ... year, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) noticed that employees contribution to PF/ESI was paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC disallowed the deduction claimed and added

ACIT-Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Teradata India Pvt. Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), Ltd., 301-302, Tower 4A, Gurugram S-Block Dlf Corporate Park, Dlf City Phase-Iii, Pan No. Aacct 6715 A Gurugram – 122 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akshay Uppal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.05.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Acit Vs. Teradata India Pvt Ltd. 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Who Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.11.2020 For A.Y. 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.61,82,86,370 /-. In The Intimation Issued U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Cpc, Bangalore Vide Identification No. Cpc/1920/A6/2014289684 Dated 18.03.2021, The Total Income Was Determined At Rs. 66,49,98,020/- Inter Alia By Disallowing Rs.4,67,11,644/- U/S 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees Contribution Of Pf/Esi.

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 ... ACIT vs. Teradata India Pvt Ltd. 6 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 in respect

Transnational Drilling & Minning Associates Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ustransnational Drilling & Vs. Dcit Minning Associates Pvt. Cpc Ltd., Luv-303, Agrasen New Delhi Apartment, , Ip Extension, New Delhi-110 092 Pan No. Aadct 1249 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

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 ... 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

Aroma Aromatics & Flavours, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1634/Del/2020 (A.Y 2017-18)

1 Aroma Aromatics & Flavors. Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : “A” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B

Incedo Technology Solutions Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle -10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

effect over the other provisions of the Act in respect of deduction and allowance of an expenditure hence the due date referred in section 36(1)(va) of the Act should be read in conjunction with section 43B of the Act. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate ... Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd, wherein it has held that the "Due date" in section 36(1)(va) for payment of employees' Provident Fund, ESIC etc contribution should be read with section 43B(b) to mean "due date" for filing

Golfgreen Infra Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1)And The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

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

Indigo Infraprojects Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Kant[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Indigo Infraprojects Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, Wz-13, D/2, Opposite A-2, Circle-10(1), Gurudwara, Asaltpur, Janakpuri, Delhi. Delhi-110058. Pan-Aacci8551P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Tarun Kandhari, Ca & Ms. Renu Suri, Ca Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in taking a view that amendment in section 36(1)(va) of the Act is retrospective in nature. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of CPC by not allowing

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

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 ... 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