← 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)

ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi vs. Aero Club, Delhi

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the

ITA 2293/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

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

Krishan Pal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-34(1), Delhi

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the

ITA 2250/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

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

Savleen Kaur, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-54 (4), Delhi

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the

ITA 2249/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

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

B4S Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the

ITA 2197/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

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

DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi vs. Htl Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 7808/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeetandra Kr. Kale, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

clarified that this circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employees contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. 1961." 3. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 4 ITA.No.7808/Del./2017 4. That

Jaya Hospitals, Warangal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Warangal

In the result, ITA No.616/Hyd/2022 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 617/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya
Section 37Section 40

taxmann.com 178 (SC). In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the impact of the provisions under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in depth and while holding the issue against the assessee, held as under : “53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution ... 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

Jaya Hospitals, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, ITA No.616/Hyd/2022 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 616/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya
Section 37Section 40

taxmann.com 178 (SC). In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the impact of the provisions under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in depth and while holding the issue against the assessee, held as under : “53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution ... 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

B.E.Billimoria & Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the ass

ITA 2788/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 B.E. Billimoria & Company Ltd., The Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), Shiv Sagar Estate, Block-A 2Nd Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Floor, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli Vs. Karve Road, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacb 1542 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By None : Revenue By Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by None
Section 139Section 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

dated 12 held that delayed payment of ESI/PF are payment of ESI/PF are liable for disallowance in terms of section in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Respectfully following the finding of Hon’ble Respectfully following the finding of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), Supreme Court (supra

Itek Packz, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 995/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant denies itself to be liable to the disallowance of Rs. 13,48,407/-under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amendment ... section 36(1)(va) was prospective from the AY 2022-23 and the_ disallowance ought to have been deleted in full, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the intimation issued by the learned Assessing Officer under section 143(1

Mass Fab Technologies, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1079/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant denies itself to be liable to the disallowance of Rs. 13,48,407/-under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amendment ... section 36(1)(va) was prospective from the AY 2022-23 and the_ disallowance ought to have been deleted in full, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the intimation issued by the learned Assessing Officer under section 143(1

Neeta Tours and Travels, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax, Circle 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1872/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalneeta Tours & Travels, D-1, Hari Bhakti Compound, Retibunder, Opp. Dowellss Co., Ghodbunder Road, Kashimira, Thane-401104. Pan: Aaefn3413G ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Room No.27, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. 162, Midc, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Hiten P. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 30.05.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Hiten P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 40Section 40ASection 41Section 43BSection 80G

account of non-production of donation receipts, a lump sum addition of Rs. 8, 00,000/- and addition on account of section 36(1) (va) amounting to Rs. 5, 92,809/- to the total income of assessee. 4. Against this order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal before ... dates prescribed by the respective Statutes mentioned (supra). In this regard we rely upon the explanation inserted to section 43B and section 36(1) (va) by the Finance Act, 2021 which is clarificatory in nature and have retrospective effect. Moreover, since hearing of the matter till dictation of the order

M/S. Almech Facades Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC`, Delhi

ITA 1549/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Almech Facades Pvt. National Faceless Appeal Ltd., Centre (Nfac), 113B, Hub Town Solaris Delhi Building, Vs. N.S. Phadke Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069 Pan: Aanca3788P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 15,23,505/- under section 36 (1)(va) of the Income-tax 2 M/s. Almech Facades Pvt. Ltd. Act, 1961 (Act) on payments made to employee's provident fund before ... circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in making a disallowance of Rs. 15,23,505/- under section 36 (1)(va) Act without appreciating that the same is allowable as per the ratio of the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court which are binding

Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd, Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Aayakar Bhavan, Building Ak Nayak Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaacg 1846 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Babulal Sharma, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Babulal Sharma, AR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

entitle the employer to a deduction under section entitle the employer to a deduction under section entitle the employer to a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act unless the employer had credited 36(1)(va) of the Act unless the employer had credited 36(1)(va ... within the relevant fund within the 'due date applicable for that date applicable for that Gannon Dunkerlye & Co. Ltd. 5 relevant fund. (incidentally Section 36(1)(va) was relevant fund. (incidentally Section 36(1)(va) was relevant fund. (incidentally Section 36(1)(va) was inserted by the Finance

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 765/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

contribution of EPF and ESI paid beyond the due dates as 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 ... have been made beyond the due dates specified in the respective acts i.e., Provident Fund Act & ESI Act, which attracted the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act leading to disallowance of this sum to the extent not paid on or before

Sahrudaya Health Care (Kurnool) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 596/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sahrudaya Health Care Vs. The Income Tax Officer, (Kurnool), Private Limited, Ward 3 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aawcs3735M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

provisions. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on account of the PF and ESI contribution received by the assessee from the employees and deposited with ... issue and the employees contribution to the PF and ESI not deposited by the 3 assessee within the due date as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be allowed. 4. Assessee is, therefore, before us in this appeal stating that inasmuch as the assessee credited the amounts

I-Security Services, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1003/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

made by the Learned AO towards disallowance of PF and ESI contribution of employees paid beyond the due date under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act. Page 2 of 5 8. The Learned CIT (A) and the Learned AO have erred in making the addition ... PF/ESI as per the respective Act, to which the CPC (Central Processing Center), while processing the income of the assessee, disallowed as per section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. I further noted that on the statement of facts submitted by the assessee, he has referred

M/S. Automac Diesels, Huballi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 338/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(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 isto 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

Crawley & Ray Founders & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, CPC, Banlaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Mallick, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA आयकरअपीलीयअधीकरण, "ायपीठ “C”कोलकाता, BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND

Grip Strapping Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

strapping, seals and paper products and trade in tools. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal in respect of the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on account of the PF and ESI contribution received by the assessee from ... issue and the employees contribution to the PF and ESI not deposited by the assessee within the due date as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be allowed. 4. Assessee is, therefore, before us in this appeal stating that inasmuch as the assessee credited the amounts

M/S Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Veto Switchgears Vs. Acit, 13(3)(2) & Cables Limited Room No. 229, 2 Nd Floor, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashtra Maharishi Karve Road, 400 058 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccv4990K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

erred in facts and law in not appreciating the fact that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are prospective in nature and not applicable for the year under consideration. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in facts ... 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