“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)

Manipal Singh Walia (L/H of Kirpal Singh), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 52(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.181/Del./2023 (ASSESSMENT

Manipal Singh Walia (L/H of Kirpal Singh), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 52(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 181/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.181/Del./2023 (ASSESSMENT

Dasari Bujji, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 20/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.20/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Dasari Bujji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.40-54-5/31 Ward-1(1) Sanjeevayya Colony, Visakhapatnam Near Bethadha Church, Tatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bklpd8566J]

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

1). He further contended that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the amendments made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 i.e.A.Y.2022-23 and do not apply for the year under consideration. He further contended that the assessee ... employees contribution of EPF and ESI paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act and these funds are referred in section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The information gives the details of due date of payment, actual date of payment to the concerned authorities and these payments

M/S Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DIT /CPC, Bengeluru

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 200/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Mongra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40ASection 43B

already considered all the aspects and finalize the assessment without making any addition to the extent of Rs. 6,47,664/- under Section 36(1)(va). But the issue is covered against the assessee. As regards, addition of Rs. 93,18,776/- when an amount

Aztec Shiva Handicrafts & Arts Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Jodhpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Arts Pvt. Ltd. account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities

Shri Arun Kumar Shrivastava, Indore vs. Asstt, Director of Income Tax, Indore

ITA 98/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Shri Arun Kumar Adit, Cpc, Shrivastava, Bangalore 9, Shakti Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aopps 9595 H Assessee By Shri Soumya Bomb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

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

preferred this appeal before us. 4. Thus, the sole issue involved is related to the disallowance u/s 2(24)(ix) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delayed payment of employee’s contributions to PF / ESI made by CPC through intimation issued u/s 143(1 ... contribution” is not statutorily disallowable at all because the same does not fall in the clutches of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va); the same is governed by section 36(1)(iv) read with section 43B according to which the deduction is allowed if the assessee

M/S. Ritspin Synthetics Ltd., Pithampur vs. The DCIT, /CPC, Banglore

ITA 341/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S Ritspin Synthetics Dcit, Cpc, Ltd. Bangalore Plot No.2, Kheda Vs. Industrial Growth Center, Pithampur District - Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr 8303 E Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

provision for gratuity u/s 40A(7) of Rs. 32,70,362/-; and (ii) employees’ contributions to PF/ESI u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of Rs. 1,28,43,256/-. Being aggrieved by same, the assessee filed first-appeal but could not succeed. Now, the assessee

The ADIT CPC, Bengaluru vs. Sunderlal Moolchand Jain, Indore

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 213/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S Sunderlal Moolchand Adit, Cpc, Jain Tobacconist Private Bangalore Limited, Vs. 31, Kacchi Mohalla, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecs 7779 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

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

account of delay in depositing Employees' Sunderlal Moolchand Jain Page 2 of 7 Contribution towards PF and ESIC under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 even when the said issue is highly debatable in nature and therefore is outside the purview of the provisions of section ... passed under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of delay in depositing Employees' Contribution towards PF and ESIC under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating facts of the case and submissions made before him even when the said amount

M/S Vijay Pulses, Indore vs. The ACIT 4(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Vijay Pulses, Dcit, Cpc, 12, Sajan Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafv 9714 E Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 154Section 43B

merit, the employees contributions paid belatedly after due date under PF/ESI laws attract disallowance in terms of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). M/s.Vijay Pulses Page 4 of 8 5. Regarding 1st component of disallowance amounting to Rs. 2,10,005/-, we are not in agreement ... audit report regarding inadmissibility of claim with respect to contributions received from the employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act, it would be useful to reproduce section 143(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return

T Srinivasa Rao&Co, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 184/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

1). He further contended that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the amendments made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 i.e.A.Y.2022-23 and do not apply for the years under consideration. He further contended that the assessee ... employees contribution of EPF and ESI paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act and these various funds are referred in section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The information gives the details of due date of payment, actual date of payment to the concerned authorities and these

Sri Ranga Motors, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 179/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

1). He further contended that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the amendments made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 i.e.A.Y.2022-23 and do not apply for the years under consideration. He further contended that the assessee ... employees contribution of EPF and ESI paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act and these various funds are referred in section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The information gives the details of due date of payment, actual date of payment to the concerned authorities and these

Eastern Warehouse Corporation, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 175/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

1). He further contended that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the amendments made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 i.e.A.Y.2022-23 and do not apply for the years under consideration. He further contended that the assessee ... employees contribution of EPF and ESI paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act and these various funds are referred in section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The information gives the details of due date of payment, actual date of payment to the concerned authorities and these

Tetali Anil Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 174/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

1). He further contended that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the amendments made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 i.e.A.Y.2022-23 and do not apply for the years under consideration. He further contended that the assessee ... employees contribution of EPF and ESI paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act and these various funds are referred in section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The information gives the details of due date of payment, actual date of payment to the concerned authorities and these

Assyst International Pvt Ltd, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Circle1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 898/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Assyst International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle -1(1) Kochi Ii/138-D, Nh -47, Muttam Thaikkattukkara P.O. Kochi 683106 Pan – Aadca0592R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. K.Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 .03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20. 2. There Is Delay Of ‘64’ Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Also An Affidavit Of Cfo Of The Assessee Company Stating, Therein, The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of Reason Stating For Affidavit For Late Filing Of This Appeal, We Are View That There Is ‘Sufficient Cause’ & No Latches Can Be Attributable To The Assessee. Hence, We Condon Delay Of ‘64’ Days In Filing This Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Of The Same On Merits.

For Appellant: Ms. K.Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

1) of the Act adding an amount of Rs.4,31,783/- on account of disallowance on account of late payment of PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act under the respective Act. 5. Aggrieved by the said disallowance the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority

M/S Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Aluva vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 876/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Acit, Vs. Xvi, Keezhmad Panchayat, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Ashokapuram,Aluva, Kochi – 682 018. Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 101. Pan :Aafck 1498 J Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Manu Kurian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchant Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) which was to the effect that Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B(b) operate on totally different equilibriums and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked ... 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

Kavungal Vareed Itteera, Kerala vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 855/COCH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 34(1)(iv)Section 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

K M Automobiles, Korba vs. Income Tax Officer -1, Korba

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 100/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 100/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 K M Automobiles Plot No.187, Transport Nagar, Korba, Chhatisgarh-495 677 Pan: Aanfk0386L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

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

state insurance fund of Rs1,64,468 as the said contribution were remitted after the due date specified under the relevant Act under section 36(1)(va). 1.2. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in not following the ratio of the decisions, among others, of the Supreme Court ... Corporation Ltd v CIT (2016) 71 taxmann.com 247 (Pat). 1.3. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in interpreting the amendments made in section 36(1)(va) of the Act vide the Finance Act 2021 as retrospective in nature. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in not appreciating that

Meeta Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(8), New Delhi

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

ITA 1793/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2019-20 Meeta Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O Jain & Malhotra, Ward-68(8), 117, Inderprakash Building, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Axops3464K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2023 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Invoking Section 50C Of The I.T Act Without Following The Proper Procedure Laid Down In The Act. The Action Of The Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal, Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Confirming The Addition On Account Of Deemed Capital Gain Amounting To Rs.9,50,000/-. The Action Of The Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal,' Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Enhancing The Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The Income Tax Act. The Action Of The Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal, Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed. The Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Submit, Alter Or Withdraw Any Or All Grounds Of Appeal Before Or On The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 50C

expressed any view in this order, on whether the aforesaid amendments brought in by Finance Act, 2021 [whereby Explanation-2 was inserted in Section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act and Explanation-5 was inserted in Section 43B of Income Tax Act] are prospective or retrospective. In the light

M/S Tesla Transformers (India) Ltd, Bhopal vs. ACIT 3(1) Bhopal, Bhopal

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

ITA 190/IND/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Tesla Transformers Acit 3(1) (India) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagct 8705 J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2023

Section 115BSection 143(1)

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

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 92C

ground no.4, the Revenue has raised the issue of deletion of disallowance of Rs.8,95,765, being delayed payment of ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 22. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee fairly conceded that the issue has to be decided against the assessee ... aforesaid submission with the assessee. 24. Having considered rival submission, we find that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that the payments were made before the due date of filing of return of income under Section