← 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)

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 174/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, D.R
Section 144(3)Section 37Section 92C

fund [amounting to INR 6,05,333 and deposited by the Appellant before the due date of filing the return of income] under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act. 4.2. The learned AO erred in not following the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 985/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajgopal, ARFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

addition made by the Ld. AO in his order by taking recourse to the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to the section 43B which takes effect from 1st April 2021 and is applicable to the AY 2021-22 onwards ... 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

Draeger Safety India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1533/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdraeger Safety India Vs. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax Appeals 9Th Floor, Commerz Ii National Faceless International Business Assessment Centre Park, Oberoi Garden Delhi City, Off Western Express Highway Mumbai – 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecd0537A Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)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 ITA No.1533/Mum/2022 A.Y.2018-19 5 Draeger Safety India Pvt. Ltd. VS.CIT(A) NFAC distinction between the employers

Mresult Services Private Limited, Bngalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 953/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

whereby the employees Page 2 of 3 contribution to PF and ESI should be remitted before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) i.e., on or before the due date under the relevant employee welfare legislation like PF Act, ESI Act etc., for the same

2M Ateliers & Design Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. DIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1357/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm 2M Ateliers & Design Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Dit, Cpc 62, Evergreen Industrial Estate, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 001 Shakti Mill Lane, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai-400 011

For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

confirmed the addition made by the A.O. on the ground that the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s.2(24)(x) r/w section 36(1)(va) of the Act, owing to the delay in the said payments before the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. 3 2M Ateliers & Design

Batliboi Renewable Energy Soluations Private Limited, Chennai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 813/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

Court in revenue’s favor as under: - 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what ... 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

Electrical India, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 789/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

Court in revenue’s favor as under: - 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what ... 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

Mr. Abdul Hassn Rizvi, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 788/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

Court in revenue’s favor as under: - 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what ... 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

Dharmaraj Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 756/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

Court in revenue’s favor as under: - 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what ... 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

Myunghwa Automotive India Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 820/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.820/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Myunghwa Automotive India P. Ltd. The Acit, बनाम/ No.112, Sidadivakkam Village, Corporate Circle-4(1), Vs. Kanchipuram-631 560. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-2148-H (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : (#$थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Divya Sukumar (Fca)- Ld. Ar #$थ कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan – (Addl. Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 26-10-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 02-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Sukumar (FCA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan – (Addl. CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय *ी वी. दुगा0

M/S. India Pistons Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 797/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan – (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(va)

assessment year 2018-19 & 2019-20 by order dated 08.12.2021 after considering the amendment brought in the statute by finance Act,2021 of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B has held that provision is prospective and not retrospective and will be applicable from the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent

Dmc Automotive Private Limited, Tiruvallur vs. Assessing Officer, Corporate Ward, Income Tax Department, Nungambakkam

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 792/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Dmc Automotive Private Ltd. The Assessing Officer बनाम/ No.5, Othappai Village, Uthukottai Taluk Corporate Ward-1(4) Vs. Odappai B.O, Poondi, Tiruvallur-602 023. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccd-4671-P (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : (#$थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Govindarajan (Ca) – Ld. Ar #$थ कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan – (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 26-10-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 02-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Shri Govindarajan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan – (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय *ी वी. दुगा0

Pandurang Rama Poojari, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1317/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Pandurang Rama Poojari National Faceless Appeal Nasreen Mazil, Gujarati Centre Mandal Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Delhi, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai- 400 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp5890L Assessee By : Shri. Jigar Sangani Revenue By : Shri. Ujjawal Chavan. (Sr Ar) Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Jigar SanganiFor Respondent: Shri. Ujjawal Chavan. (SR AR)
Section 143Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(VA)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

Honorable CIT(A) erred in not allowing the employer's contribution od Rs 3,57,500 the basis of amendment to section 36(1)(VA) and explanation to section 43(B)(b) presuming the same to be retrospective though it was clearly stated in the Act it is effective from ... section 2(24)(x) unless deposited with concerned authorities on or before the due date as defined in Explanation (now Explanation 1) below section 36(1)(va) i.e. due dates under the relevant employee welfare legislation like PF Act, ESI Act etc. iv. The non-obstante clause in section

ACIT-13(1) (2), Mumbai vs. Oommen Chackalyil Chacko, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1620/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Kedar PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Santhil Kumaran
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1620/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 2. The solitary issue raised in the present appeal pertains to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The CIT(A) had deleted ... that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employees contribution to PF/ESI, and the due date specified under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment

M/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Dir of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1556/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O. RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Year: 2017-18 & 2019-20 2. The solitary issue raised in both the appeals pertains to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). In the appeal filed ... that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employees’ contribution to PF/ESI, and the due date specified under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment

Legacy Global Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 846/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arvind S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 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

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 799/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

receipts not ITA Nos. 798 & 799/Bang/2022 Page 7 of 10 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 ... 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

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 798/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

receipts not ITA Nos. 798 & 799/Bang/2022 Page 7 of 10 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 ... 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

Ramakrishnappa Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 795/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 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

Sara Trans Industries, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1550/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shiv P. SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

only grievance of the assessee is against disallowance on account of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is a partnership firm engaged ... assessment proceedings, upon perusal of audit report in Form 3 CD, it was observed that assessee has not complied to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act related to certain payments of contributions received from employees to provident fund. It was noticed that the assessee has failed