Section 36(1)(va) — 2,467 case laws

Hi-Tech Instruments & Systems, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 15/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.15/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2019-20) Hi-Tech Instruments & Control Vs. Income Tax Officer, Systems, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadfh 9770 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri D. Madhusudhana Rao, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri D. Madhusudhana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR

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

circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that amendments brought in Finance Act, 2021 in the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act shall be applicable w.e.f 1/4/2021. Thus, Explanation-2 and Explantion-5 in section 36(1)(va) and section ... that since the assessee has not deposited the employees contribution to the respective fund account on the date as prescribed in Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO was just, proper and reasonable, therefore, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A)- NFAC rightly

Ocean Exim India Private Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 37/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Prabha Rana (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

1) on 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. Being aggrieved by the order issued U/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... observing as under:- “8. I view of the aforesaid, it is amply clear that even prior to insertion of Explanation 2 in section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 in section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, section 43B will not apply to employees contributions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 99/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Nimar Motors P. Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, Jetapur Sanawad Road Bangalore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccn 9368 D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Smt. Chhaya Balwani Dcit, Cpc, Green Height, Bangalore Vs. 27, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpb 5766 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Rohit Panchal Dcit, Cpc, 47, Roop Ram Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Manik Bagh, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Amvpp 7291 D Assessee By Shri Hiresh Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

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

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 ... 36(1)(va) of the Act, does not require the auditor to make any specific observation regarding admissibility of the amount under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. At the same time, when we observe several other parts of the tax audit report viz. serial number 21(b)-amounts

Smt Cjjaya Balwani, Bhopal vs. The Cpo, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 330/IND/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Nimar Motors P. Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, Jetapur Sanawad Road Bangalore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccn 9368 D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Smt. Chhaya Balwani Dcit, Cpc, Green Height, Bangalore Vs. 27, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpb 5766 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Rohit Panchal Dcit, Cpc, 47, Roop Ram Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Manik Bagh, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Amvpp 7291 D Assessee By Shri Hiresh Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

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

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 ... 36(1)(va) of the Act, does not require the auditor to make any specific observation regarding admissibility of the amount under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. At the same time, when we observe several other parts of the tax audit report viz. serial number 21(b)-amounts

Shri Rohit Panchal, Indore vs. The DCIT-CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 203/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Nimar Motors P. Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, Jetapur Sanawad Road Bangalore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccn 9368 D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Smt. Chhaya Balwani Dcit, Cpc, Green Height, Bangalore Vs. 27, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpb 5766 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Rohit Panchal Dcit, Cpc, 47, Roop Ram Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Manik Bagh, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Amvpp 7291 D Assessee By Shri Hiresh Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

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

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 ... 36(1)(va) of the Act, does not require the auditor to make any specific observation regarding admissibility of the amount under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. At the same time, when we observe several other parts of the tax audit report viz. serial number 21(b)-amounts

Nimar Motors P Ltd, Khargone vs. DCIT/CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 118/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Nimar Motors P. Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, Jetapur Sanawad Road Bangalore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccn 9368 D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Smt. Chhaya Balwani Dcit, Cpc, Green Height, Bangalore Vs. 27, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpb 5766 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Rohit Panchal Dcit, Cpc, 47, Roop Ram Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Manik Bagh, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Amvpp 7291 D Assessee By Shri Hiresh Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

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

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 ... 36(1)(va) of the Act, does not require the auditor to make any specific observation regarding admissibility of the amount under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. At the same time, when we observe several other parts of the tax audit report viz. serial number 21(b)-amounts

Bikaner Engineering Works, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 372/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beign, JCIT

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

above discussions, the employee’s contribution to the PF and ESI, not deposited by the appellant within the due date as per section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961, cannot be allowed and accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing ... 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

G.S Developers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Range-10, Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 757/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargita Nos. 756 & 757/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2019-20) G. S. Developers & Vs. Acit Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Range -10 C-58, Community Centre, Delhi Sahapuri Tirath Singh Tower, New Delhi – 110058 Pan No. Aaacg 0870 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D. K. Gupta, C.A Shri S. C. Malhotra, C.A Revenue By Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 04.04.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019-20. 2. At The Outset, Learned Ar Submitted That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Year & Amounts Involved & Therefore The Submissions Made By Him For One Year

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

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

G.S Developers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Range-10, Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 756/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargita Nos. 756 & 757/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2019-20) G. S. Developers & Vs. Acit Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Range -10 C-58, Community Centre, Delhi Sahapuri Tirath Singh Tower, New Delhi – 110058 Pan No. Aaacg 0870 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D. K. Gupta, C.A Shri S. C. Malhotra, C.A Revenue By Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 04.04.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019-20. 2. At The Outset, Learned Ar Submitted That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Year & Amounts Involved & Therefore The Submissions Made By Him For One Year

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

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

Tempo Automobiles (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1836/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: None

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

Rs.2,56,243/- under section 40A(7) of the Act in respect of provision for gratuity and disallowance of Rs.1,51,909/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution to PF/ESI. On going through the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) we observed that ... 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

Jagannath Corporation Projects Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 167/CTK/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2020-2021 2021 Jagannath Jagannath Corporation Corporation Vs. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Projects Projects Pvt Pvt Ltd., Ltd., Plot Plot No.397, No.397, Sarangi Sarangi Bhawan Bhawan Garage Chhak, Lewis Road, Garage Chhak, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaccj 3043 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Kumar Agarwal Agarwalla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /02/2023

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Kumar AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, SR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

that the provisions of section 43B would not apply to the P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2020-2021 provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services ... interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution

Kapil Kumar Nehra, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2677/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedikapil Kumar Nehra Vs. Ito 435/16, Nawal Cottage Ward – 2(2) Civil Line Near Pushpanjali Gurgaon Hospital, Gurgaon – 122 001

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

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

Vishwaranjan Prasad Singh, Bhopal vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 139/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

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

account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance in to the Government account under Section 36(1)(va). 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment / intimation the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC. The CIT(A) / NFAC dismiss the appeal of the assessee

New Vision Softeocom & Consultabcy P Ltd, Bhopal vs. The DCIT/ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 203/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Last Date Of Filing The Income Tax Return U/S 139(1) Of The Act As Required By Section 43B(B) For Allowability Of Deduction On Actual Payment Basis.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya & Ajay Chhajad, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

respect of ESIC, and the total disallowance was ₹ 5,59,108/-. In passing the order, the AO did not allow the claim under section 36(1)(va) of the Act of ₹ 5,23,920/- being the employee’s contribution under EPF and ₹ 35,188/- on account of ESIC which ... Court that where assessee-company failed to pay employees’ contribution towards EPF and ESI within due date prescribed in respective Acts, deduction under section 36(1)(va) was not allowable. Recently in the case of Ms. NalinaDyave Gowda[2023] 146 taxmann.com 420 (Bangalore - Trib.) the assessee during, financial year

Kwality Motel Shiraz, Bhopal vs. Asst Director of Income Tax CPC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/IND/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Kwality Motel Shiraz 1, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal-462021

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Fadnis, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,64,014/- on account of employees' contribution of Provident Fund deposited late by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi has erred in not following the binding ... provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies." (xii) Hence, there is no ambiguity in the provisions of section 36(1 )(va) and section 2(24)(x) of the Act, and the recent amendment after passing of the Finance Act 2021, has only clarified the issue

Prashanti Engineering Works P Ltd, Pithampur vs. The Asst.DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 171/IND/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

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

above discussions and also keeping in view of the clarificatory amendments brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 vide (a) Explanation 2 in section 36(1 )(va) (b) Explanation 5 in section 43B Keeping in view of the above clarificatory explanations and following the ratio of the above decisions ... 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

Venus Footarts Limited, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 375/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 7,33,96,750/- by making additions of Rs. 73,32,390/- under section 36(1)(va) on the ground that the assessee deposited employee’s contribution of Provident Fund beyond the due date specified under PF Act although the same

Anjani Kumar Dwivedi, Durg vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 98/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 98/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anjani Kumar Dwivedi Qtr. No. Lc 6/D, Street No.18, Camp-1, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 023 Pan: Aigpd3229G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, Sr. DR

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

Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bengaluru u/s.143(1) of the Act. The CPC while processing the return of income triggered the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act and disallowed an amount of Rs.31,98,463/- towards delayed deposit of the employee’s share of contributions towards Provident fund ... share of contributions towards ESI & EPF deposited by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under the respective Acts would by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act constitute income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under

Paris Elysees India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 357/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)

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

erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO(CPC) in disallowing the Employee contribution of Rs. 4,62,183/-, under Section 36(1)(va), w.r.t. PF/ESI, when the same was deposited by the assessee firm, before the due date of filing the return of income. The Action ... total income of Rs.69,87,730/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 12.11.2019 making adjustment of Rs.4,62,183/- under section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the said adjustment made by the CPC, the assessee has filed this appeal before

Bindal Apparels Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1727/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sujit Kr. Yadav, AccountantFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

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 2 Bindal Apparels Pvt. Ltd. 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

“Section 36(1)(va)”

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va)

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(va)

Hi-Tech Instruments & Systems, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

Ocean Exim India Private Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

Smt Cjjaya Balwani, Bhopal vs. The Cpo, Banglore

Shri Rohit Panchal, Indore vs. The DCIT-CPC, Bangalore

Nimar Motors P Ltd, Khargone vs. DCIT/CPC, Bangaluru

Bikaner Engineering Works, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

G.S Developers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Range-10, Delhi

G.S Developers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Range-10, Delhi

Tempo Automobiles (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

Jagannath Corporation Projects Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

Kapil Kumar Nehra, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Gurgaon

Vishwaranjan Prasad Singh, Bhopal vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

New Vision Softeocom & Consultabcy P Ltd, Bhopal vs. The DCIT/ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

Kwality Motel Shiraz, Bhopal vs. Asst Director of Income Tax CPC, Delhi

Prashanti Engineering Works P Ltd, Pithampur vs. The Asst.DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

Venus Footarts Limited, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Anjani Kumar Dwivedi, Durg vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Paris Elysees India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

Bindal Apparels Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore